Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, openWorld, destructive; the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the report is one-way, the team reviews it, and the agent must not block on it. It also warns against including personal details. Minor remaining gaps (rate limits, dedup of repeat reports) are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into scannable bullets for categories, message guidance, exclusions, and one-way behavior. Length is justified by the number of distinct rules and no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description nonetheless clarifies the one-way (no-response) nature. Combined with category semantics and content required for the message, an agent has everything needed to file a well-formed report.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema carries no descriptions, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining each enum value of 'category' with examples and specifying what the 'message' should contain (identifiers, SQL run, expected vs. actual). Only the 4000-char bound goes unmentioned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the specific verb+resource ('Report a problem with FactIQ's data or tools to the FactIQ team') and pins the scope precisely to broken tool results. An agent can immediately distinguish it from all data-retrieval siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly enumerates when to call it (four defect categories with concrete examples) and, more valuably, when NOT to call it (intentional capability boundaries, user-requested unsupported actions). It also states the non-blocking behavior, so the agent knows how to sequence this relative to the user's task.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.