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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing state effects: a new report starts in an initial state and does not change ranking or the seal, and a valid Web Bot Auth signature marks the submission verified. It also discloses irreversible data handling (order number truncated to last 4 characters). The undefined term 'offen' (presumably 'open') and the absence of guidance on duplicate submissions keep this from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by side-effect and verification details; nothing is padded. Minor deduction because the undefined status word 'offen' forces the reader to guess rather than earning its place.

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 four-required-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, verification, and data minimization, which is what an agent most needs. It omits what happens after submission (confirmation, returned identifier), any rate or duplicate-submission behavior despite idempotentHint=false, and how to amend or remove a report.

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 five parameters, including the note content stripping and the last-4-characters rule. The description repeats the order-number truncation but adds no format, syntax, or enum guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (submit/write) and resource (a purchase report, problem, or feedback to the Bots Board), and the three report types enumerate the scope. Every sibling tool (check_website, get_business, list_levels, search_businesses) is a read operation, so this write tool is unambiguously distinguishable without opening 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?

The three report categories implicitly signal when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (e.g., is a shop entry required first?), and no alternatives named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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