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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether reporting creates a persistent record, whether duplicate submissions create duplicate incidents (non-idempotent), or who is notified. The bracketed "[security]" tag is a category label, not behavioral context.

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?

A single short line with no wasted wording, and the resource is front-loaded. But the brevity here is under-specification rather than economical precision — the tag consumes roughly a third of the text without adding meaning.

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?

This is a non-idempotent write tool with four required parameters, no output schema and no parameter documentation. An agent cannot tell what happens after submission, whether the incident gets an ID back, or how this differs from compliance_incidents, so the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for four required parameters, and it provides no information about any of them. The names and the severity enum are largely self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but nothing clarifies what system_id refers to or how affected_users should be counted.

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?

"Report compliance incident" does give a verb and a resource, but "report" is ambiguous — it could mean file/create an incident or retrieve a report about one. There is also a near-identical sibling, compliance_incidents (plural), and the description does nothing to distinguish creating an incident from listing them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative compliance_incidents. An agent seeing both names must guess which one files an incident and which one reads them.

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