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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discharges most of it: it discloses the rate limit, no-auth access, manual review, and the key side-effect boundary (reports do not auto-suspend the tool). It omits specifics like the rate-limit value or how duplicate reports are handled, but the safety and workflow profile is unusually well surfaced for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 purpose, then access constraints, then the side-effect caveat, then an Args block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; 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 report-filing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, access, side effects, and every parameter. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, leaving nothing material missing.

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% and the schema declares no enums, yet the description documents all four parameters and supplies the enum-like value set for 'reason' (downtime, incorrect_response, scam_or_abuse, schema_violation, other) that the schema lacks. This compensates fully for the coverage gap and adds meaning beyond the raw types.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('File a real complaint about a tool's reliability or behavior') plus the destination ('with Wicked Registry'). This is distinct from siblings like registry_tool_detail, registry_register_tool, and reputation_statement, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 clear operating context ('Public, rate-limited, no auth required') and sets expectations ('Reviewed manually by an admin — filing a report does not auto-suspend the tool'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to file, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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