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

Beyond the annotations it discloses exactly what the agent cannot assume: the report's title and body are never echoed back, the call does not repeat the message in its answer, and a wrong receipt is indistinguishable from someone else's receipt ('the same not found'). It also gives a concrete limit — 20 messages from the reporter per report — and confirms no state change beyond appending to the thread, which is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 action and payload come first, then the non-obvious return behavior, then the security scoping, then the cap, then the reassuring boundary. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise get wrong; nothing is padding.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by telling the agent the response will not echo the message and the report body is inaccessible. For a two-parameter append tool, the constraints, scoping, and rate cap cover everything needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by adding scoping semantics the schema does not: the receipt is bound to the account that filed it, so a mismatch surfaces as 'not found' rather than a permission error. It also restates the 4,000-character limit, which is redundant with the schema but harmless.

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 destination ('ADD TO YOUR PRIVATE SECURITY REPORT') and enumerates the three kinds of content it carries — reproduction detail, a correction, or an answer to an operator's question. That distinguishes it from report_security (which files a report) and from the other siblings without needing the schema.

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?

It states the triggering situations (new repro detail, correction, answering an operator) and rules out a class of misuse with 'Nothing here reopens, closes or re-prioritises anything.' It never names a sibling alternative, so an agent must infer that report_security is the tool for new reports and security_check for status.

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