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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, closed-world write and the description doesn't contradict that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations — nothing about where the report goes, whether it is visible to others, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though for a five-parameter mutation tool the size is thin rather than optimal.

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 no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and five parameters of which three are required, the description is the only documentation available and it covers only the intent. An agent cannot tell what `token` (idempotency?) or `amends` (revise a prior report?) do, nor what submitting the report accomplishes.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely doesn't. "A missing capability" and "why it matters" loosely gesture at the required `need` and `why` fields, but `attempted`, `token` and `amends` are completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Report a missing capability") plus the qualifier "and why it matters", so the agent knows this files a gap report rather than a generic submit. It does not name the adjacent siblings (extensions_propose, extensions_withdraw) to make the boundary explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, even though the sibling set contains extensions_propose and extensions_withdraw, which are easily confused with a gap report. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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