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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: the author of record is the npub, a fee is charged, the report is public and unverified, it goes to maintainers' triage, and it explicitly states the not-configured case results in no charge. It also details the required dpop_token format, adding significant 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?

The description is well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing important caveats (fee, attribution, public nature, not-configured fallback). It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, cost implications, attribution, public visibility, verification status, return values, and the not-configured case. The output schema exists and the description even summarizes the return format, making it fully complete for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including the dpop_token's specific requirements. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'File a field report about this service as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the large sibling list by being the only reporting tool, and the action is unambiguous.

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 provides a clear trigger: 'Found a tool's metadata or response wrong or confusing?' and explains the workflow (report it where the tool lives). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but given there are no similar siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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