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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the report is free, read by a human, and the fastest way to get a defect fixed. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 tightly written sentences with a clear front-loaded verb and resource. The examples are illustrative rather than redundant, and every sentence contributes to either purpose, usage, or behavioral expectations. No fluff.

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 simple feedback-submission tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what to report, what counts as a problem, how to make the report actionable, and what the user gets in return (human attention, free, fast). The six parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a useful high-level instruction to 'say what you expected as well as what you got,' which loosely reinforces the problem and expected fields, but it does not add meaningful technical detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Report something wrong with a result,' and gives concrete examples of what counts as wrong. It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from most siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar report-type tools like report_correction or report_gap.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a result is wrong, misleading, or useless, with concrete failure examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks a full exclusion/alternatives map, but the intended usage is unmistakable.

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