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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful behavior not in them: 'Then tell the user it was sent. Nobody replies.' This clarifies the fire-and-forget nature and that the agent must relay confirmation. It omits anything about auth or rate limits, but little else is needed.

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 and the four categories, then closes with the behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, though the category list is dense enough that it reads as a run-on.

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 not be explained, and the description covers when to use it and how to behave afterward. It is nearly complete for a reporting tool, with the only gap being the unexplained uuid correlation parameters.

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 only 17%, so the description must carry the load. It does define the four 'kind' enum values in prose, which is a real value-add, but the other four parameters (tool, generation_id, storyboard_id, workflow_run_id) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a coverage gap it does not compensate for.

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 and resource ('Tell Kuro's team'), and enumerates the four report categories by name. No sibling tool does feedback, so the agent can immediately tell what this is for without opening any 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions for each of the four scenarios and maps them to the 'kind' enum values (missing_tool, bug, confusing, wrong_result). There is no alternative feedback tool, so the when-to-use guidance is complete.

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