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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only state this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write) by disclosing the retention/review SLA ("stored and reviewed within hours"), a hard rate limit ("5 reports per hour"), and an explicit data-handling contract listing what must and must not be included. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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 the trigger condition, then requirements, then exclusions and limits, so each sentence contributes. It is somewhat long, and the no-secrets/no-chat-history list is duplicated between the body and the interaction_log parameter description, which is minor redundancy.

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 10-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: when to file, what evidence to attach, what to redact, throughput limits, and that no synchronous return value is expected. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already carries field-level meaning. The description adds value by prescribing the content for the key fields — relevant ToolRouter errors, all call IDs, non-sensitive input shape, retries, expected behavior — guiding the agent on what to populate rather than just restating field names.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("Report a ToolRouter platform bug") and scopes it to failures that block the user's task, so the agent can tell this apart from generic feedback tools. It never names the closest siblings (feedback_request_tool, feedback_review), so the differentiation is implied rather than 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?

Gives explicit positive triggers ("tool crashed, returned malformed data, timed out, behaved inconsistently") and explicit exclusions ("Skip this for expected errors like invalid input, missing credentials, insufficient balance, rate limits, or genuine not found results"). This is a textbook when/when-not specification.

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