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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the purpose. It does not mention whether this is a write operation, what happens to the submitted report, any permissions required, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose in under 20 words. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

Given the tool's complexity—six parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations—the one-line description is insufficient. It fails to specify the meaning of 'context', 'provider', or the distinction between success and friction inputs, leaving the agent guessing about important parts of the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'rating' and 'journeyStep' and hints at 'whatWorked'/'whatFailed' via 'success or friction', but leaves 'context', 'provider', and the exact roles of other parameters unexplained. This partial coverage is above baseline but incomplete.

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 clearly states the verb ('report') and resource ('success or friction while using MoltAd'), and mentions the key inputs (rating + journey step). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_bug, report_click, and report_conversion, which target specific event types.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool to report user experience (success or friction) within MoltAd. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is specific enough to infer when it applies, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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