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

The annotations provide basic mutability hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: fire-and-forget semantics, that it never blocks the user's task, and a clear privacy boundary excluding secrets, tokens, bodies, uploaded files, and personal data. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose. The field list is short and earns its place by adding filling guidance rather than just repeating the schema, and the privacy rule is a single necessary sentence. No 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?

For a fire-and-forget feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers what triggers it, what fields to populate, the expected non-blocking behavior, and what to omit. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns, but the fire-and-forget framing makes that less critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance by saying fields should be filled with whatever is known, giving a concrete context example with toolPath/platform/accountId, and reinforcing the sensitive-data exclusion. This elevates it above the schema-only case.

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'), the target resource (AdKit), and enumerates accepted categories (bug, confusing behavior, missing capability, product feedback). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool adkit_help.

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: to report a bug or feedback, and it calls out the fire-and-forget, non-blocking nature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the conditions are reasonably clear.

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