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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds useful return information (id, time, status) but does not warn that non-idempotent submission means repeated calls create duplicate tickets, nor mention any auth or rate constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient, then the triggering condition, then the return value. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, time, status). The only shortfall is the unmentioned duplicate-submission behavior for a non-idempotent write, which an agent might reasonably need.

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% with enums for category and severity, so the schema fully documents the five parameters. The description adds nothing about field meaning, which is acceptable at baseline but not value-adding.

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?

A specific verb ('Report') plus the resource ('a problem, missing data, an unclear error or an idea') and the recipient ('the WisePPC team'). The enumerated cases make the tool unmistakable against query-oriented siblings like run_query or get_report.

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?

Explicit invocation conditions are given: 'when a tool answer is wrong, empty without a reason or confusing.' It doesn't state when not to use it or name an alternative channel, but none of the siblings overlap, so the context is unambiguous.

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