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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state mutation. It adds useful behavioral context: 'Free, no credits' (cost implication) and guidance on what to include (what you were doing, exact tool call and arguments, what came back). No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows into usage guidance, exclusions, and cost. It's slightly long but every sentence earns its place with no fluff. The structure is logical and scannable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent when to use it, how to construct a good report, and what not to use it for. It even names the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and all three parameters (summary, details, severity) are fully described in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific syntax beyond what the schema provides, but it does contextualize the 'details' parameter by listing what to include. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything.

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+resource ('Report a bug in Hermoso to the team') and enumerates specific examples of genuine misbehavior (tool errors, wrong/malformed results, broken renders, documented-behavior mismatch). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from request_feature, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions (genuine misbehavior with concrete examples) and when-not-to-use exclusions (out-of-credits, policy refusal, missing capability) with the correct alternative named (request_feature). This is exactly the explicit routing needed.

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