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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior — default ordering (newest first), the fact that id mode attaches preceding game events and frame-rate data, and that screenshot: true returns an image. It does not say whether the list is capped or paginated, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is, then pivots to the two modes and the cross-references with no filler sentences. The dense semicolon-chained phrasing is slightly run-on but 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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and light annotations, the description carries its weight by describing the returned fields and the per-id context. It stops short of stating result limits or how hours interacts with the newest-first ordering, which an agent would want for a listing tool.

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 100%, so a 3 is the floor; the description earns above that by explaining that supplying id changes the response shape entirely (single report plus context) and that screenshot only matters with id ('what the player saw'). The level and hours semantics are already fully covered in the schema, so no further credit there.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('bug reports players sent from inside the game') and enumerates the payload it carries (text, level, position, device, version, session). It also splits behavior by mode (no id vs. with id), so an agent understands what it gets before opening the schema. Sibling references to glitchless_session and glitchless_triage make the boundary explicit.

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?

'Without an id: the window's reports, newest first, optionally on one level' and 'With an id: one report with the game events just before it' give clear mode-selection conditions. Siblings are named as related sources rather than as explicit substitutes ('use X instead when...'), so there is routing signal but no stated exclusions.

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