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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., providing no strong safety signals. The description implies the tool files a report for the platform team but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a ticket is created, notifications sent, or if the report is reversible). It adds value by describing the report content but leaves behavioral details implicit.

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 two sentences: the first defines purpose and triggers, the second lists required report components. Every phrase carries informational weight, with no filler or repetition of schema details. It is optimally front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 params, 7 required, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description does a solid job covering the core context: why, when, and what to include. It does not enumerate every parameter, but the schema provides full descriptions. The only gap is a lack of explicit guidance on severity or environment context, but these are adequately defined 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explicitly naming logs, AI analysis, references, and clarification questions as inclusion criteria, and by mapping the 'area' enum (missing MCP path, tool failure, confusing schema, CLI/docs, SDK fallback) to real-world scenarios. This helps the agent understand which parameters matter and why.

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 verb ('Report'), a clear resource ('FavCRM platform issue'), and enumerates concrete trigger scenarios (missing MCP path, tool failure, confusing schema, CLI/docs issue, SDK fallback). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are domain CRUD operations, and establishes it as a meta-reporting tool.

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 specifies when to use the tool: when an agent finds any of the listed issue types. It also instructs on what content to include (logs, AI analysis, references, clarification questions). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the trigger list provides clear use-case context.

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