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

The description discloses that the tool saves to change history and notifies support, which is beyond what annotations provide (annotations only say not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). It doesn't mention potential rate limits or response format, but the key behavioral outcomes are covered. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with important consequences. It avoids redundancy and delivers all critical information in a compact form.

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?

The tool has a schema with 100% parameter documentation, an output schema (not shown but exists), and no nested objects. The description covers the purpose, the scope of issues, the action taken (saves to history, notifies support), and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds context about the overall action (saves to history, notifies support) but does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('report a problem'), the resource (KaiCalls agent, phone number, billing, or account), and explicitly distinguishes it from other tools by noting it saves to change history and notifies support. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'request_kaicalls_update' and configuration tools.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'use this any time something is broken or not working as expected.' It implicitly distinguishes from configuration tools (which are for settings changes) and update tools (which are for feature requests). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear enough.

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