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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description supplies the missing context: the write is a report persisted for developers, and no tools are returned or added. It says nothing about duplicate reports, throttling, or what the call returns, so the safety-relevant picture is good but not complete.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the key negative clarification second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter reporting tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, that it writes a report, and that it grants no capability. Only the shape of the acknowledgement response is left unstated, a minor gap.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that context is a description of the goal and the helpful tool type. The description adds no further guidance on how to phrase that context, leaving the baseline score appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and object: report a missing capability and record it for the server's developers. It also preempts the most likely misreading by stating explicitly that it does not return or add tools, which no sibling name suggests.

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 gives a clear trigger — the user's request needs a capability this server does not have — and implicitly scopes out expecting tools back. It does not name an alternative path or say whether the agent should exhaust other tools first, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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