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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: a human reads every report, no key is required, and an optional key links the report to the account. It doesn't cover reversibility or turnaround, but the auth and human-review disclosures are meaningful additions.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the trust and auth details. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the write/destructive profile. The description supplies purpose, auth requirements, and human-review context, leaving only minor gaps like expected response timing.

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 75% and each property already carries a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying brevity expectations ('a sentence or two') and the optional api_key's role, supplementing the enum and operation params documented in the schema.

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 names a specific verb (report) plus the exact resource categories (missing capability, wrong result, bug), which map directly to the kind enum. An agent can tell instantly that this is a feedback-submission tool and distinguish it from siblings like check_receipt or get_account.

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 enumerated scenarios (missing capability, wrong result, bug) give clear context for when to use it, and 'in a sentence or two' hints at expected effort. However, no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives are given.

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