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

Annotations only signal that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the destination ("reaches the team that maintains these tools") and imposes a privacy constraint ("never include personal or confidential data"). It stops short of covering confirmation, acknowledgement, or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and categories, then the required-fields and privacy notes. No sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly does not discuss return values, and it covers the reportable categories, required fields, and a privacy guardrail. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could note what happens after submission (e.g. acknowledgement or anonymity).

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the kind enum and the null semantics. The description only restates which fields are required, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured data. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Report) and the exact resources it accepts (bug, missing feature, wrong answer, unclear docs) scoped to Lazyweb's agent tools. It is unmistakably distinct from the query-oriented siblings like lazyweb_search or lazyweb_ask_anything.

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?

"right when you hit it" gives clear timing guidance for when to invoke, and the enumerated categories map to the intended use cases. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a feedback sink there is little ambiguity, so this is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing statement.

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