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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, meaning repeat calls have same effect, and destructiveHint=false, meaning non-destructive. The description aligns with this, as reporting a bug is a non-destructive, idempotent action. It adds context about including conversation array for reproduction, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like whether the report is anonymous, internal, or if there's a rate limit. With annotations providing a safety profile, the description adds some value but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose. It mentions the key inputs without fluff. It is concise and structured effectively, though it could add a bit more detail on parameters without bloating.

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 tool is simple, with no output schema and few parameters, but with zero schema coverage, the description should fully explain each parameter. It explains 'conversation' but not 'context', and doesn't mention that 'conversation' should be a JSON string representation of an array (given the default '[]' as a string). Also, it doesn't specify whether the 'message' should include reproduction steps. Given its simplicity, a complete description would cover all parameters, so this is incomplete.

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. The description names 'conversation' and explains its purpose ('array with recent messages for reproduction'), and implies 'message' is the bug report text. It does not explain 'context' parameter at all. With three parameters and zero schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving 'context' undefined and 'conversation' format unspecified (it says 'array' but schema says default '[]' as a string). This is a gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This matches the name 'report_bug' and broadens to feedback, which is appropriate. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'show_version' or 'toolkit_info' by focusing on user-reported issues, not system info.

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 says to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which implies when to use it: when reporting an issue that needs reproduction context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for general questions or feature requests that don't need reproduction) or mention alternatives like 'connect' or 'marketplace' for other needs. It provides some practical guidance but lacks exclusion criteria.

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