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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect: the report is logged server-side. 'Free' also adds cost-related transparency. However, it does not explain whether authentication is required, whether the report is acted upon, how long the log persists, 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the main action. Every phrase adds meaning: 'Report' gives the operation, 'product or policy issue' defines scope, 'logged server-side' reveals persistence, and 'Free' communicates cost. There is no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the parameters and gives no usage context or return expectations. It is minimally adequate for identifying the tool's purpose but incomplete for confident invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the prose description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention summary, detail, or toolName at all. An agent has no guidance about what to put in the required summary field or how to use the optional detail and toolName fields.

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 clear action and object: report a product or policy issue. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like buy_kit or solve_captcha, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling. The phrase 'logged server-side' adds a small amount of scope but does not fully define what qualifies as an issue.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or expected context. The word 'Free' is a cost signal, not a usage guideline. An agent is left to infer that the tool should be used when a user reports a problem.

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