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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it is background product feedback, requires asking the user's OK first, must not interrupt the main task, should avoid duplicate reports, must never include credentials, and returns {status:'recorded', reportId, ts}. This gives the agent a clear behavioral contract far beyond the 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 long but dense and purposeful; nearly every clause earns its place by specifying a trigger condition, behavioral constraint, or composition guideline. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It loses a point for some redundancy (e.g., 'what the user wanted' appears in both the detail guidance and the steps guidance) and for being written as one sprawling paragraph rather than structured bullets.

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?

For a complex meta-tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, security implications, and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers triggers, prerequisites, body-content guidance, the steps[] structure, security constraints, and even the return shape. An agent has everything it needs to decide when to invoke the tool and how to populate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance on top: it explains that steps[] should be the call stack of tools called with key arguments and outcomes, that detail should contain what the user wanted/what happened/workaround, and that expected vs actual should be included where relevant. This gives the agent editorial guidance beyond the schema's per-field labels.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a problem, gap, or workaround with THIS MCP toolset back to the Koongo team so it can be fixed or extended.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-report tools like get_ad_item_report or get_marketplace_report by framing it as product feedback about the toolset itself, not a domain data report.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions: unresolvable errors, 500/unreachable-facade errors, missing capabilities, wrong or confusing results, agreed workarounds, and user request to 'report this'. It also gives when-not-to-use guidance: this is background feedback, not user-facing, ask OK first, file one report per scenario, and do not loop or re-file.

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