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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation (which already indicates a write operation), the description adds valuable behavior: it explains the effect (reporting for fix), introduces the 'At most one call per session' restriction, and explicitly excludes praise. There is no contradiction with the annotation; the description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and limits.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage conditions, kind definitions, and a constraint. Every sentence carries meaningful guidance; there is no fluff or repetition. The length is justified by the detailed yet efficient guidance.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, when/how to use, parameter selection, and constraints. It does not leave gaps that would confuse an agent. The absence of a return-value explanation is acceptable given no output schema, and all essential calling information is present.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning and selection criteria for 'kind', advising on 'tool' and 'project' usage, and implying the required 'message' content. It adds precise semantics that the schema alone lacks, enabling correct parameter invocation.

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 action (report a problem) and a specific resource (the Fiskmås toolset), with clear intent (so it can be fixed). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_logs or get_status by focusing on feedback and problem reporting, not monitoring or management. The purpose is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool (tool errored, got stuck, instructions unclear) and when not to (praise). It also provides conditional guidance on choosing the 'kind' parameter (bug, suggestion, other) and clarifies 'tool' and 'project' fields. The constraint 'At most one call per session' is a clear usage rule that prevents misuse.

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