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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent submission confined to Locus. The description restates the action and adds nothing behavioral, such as whether reports are persisted, throttled, or tied to a call. 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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination, with no filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than wasteful.

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 schema covers all parameters. However, for a submission tool the description gives no context on when a report is appropriate or how the optional tool/call_id/context fields should be used to make the report actionable.

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 four properties (tool, call_id, context, message) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

"Report a bug to Locus" names a verb (report) and a resource (bug), so the basic action is decipherable, but it adds almost nothing beyond the tool name and title, and provides no differentiation from the large set of sibling tools. It is minimally viable rather than specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what conditions warrant filing a bug versus e.g. retrying a failed call, or whether prerequisites apply. The single sentence offers no usage context at all.

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