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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating what the tool does (reporting) and the expectation to include a conversation array for reproduction. It doesn't contradict annotations; it expands on the purpose, though it doesn't detail side effects beyond reporting. Since annotations already convey safety, the description's additional context earns a 4.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's scope, the second provides critical usage detail (conversation array). No wasted words; ideal length for a reporting tool.

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 has a simple purpose (report/feedback) with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond safety hints. The description covers the main use case and mentions the key reproduction data (conversation). It doesn't explain the 'context' parameter or how results are returned, but for a reporting tool with no output schema, it is sufficiently complete. A 4 is appropriate, given minor gaps in parameter explanation.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters but only 'message' is required IAW schema; 'context' and 'conversation' have defaults. Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. The description mentions the 'conversation' array for reproduction but does not explain the 'context' parameter or the format for 'conversation'. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover all parameters. With 3 parameters at 0% coverage, a 4 is warranted because it explains one critical parameter but leaves others vague.

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.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and a resource ('bug') and covers multiple use cases. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its focus on reporting issues rather than performing standard Kommo operations, and it even instructs to include a conversation array for reproduction.

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 provides some guidance on what to include (conversation array for reproduction), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is clear that this is for feedback/bug reporting, but it lacks exclusions or mention of alternative tools for other types of support. The guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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