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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond instructing to include the conversation array, which is useful for reproduction but doesn't disclose side effects or requirements. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides a key instruction. There are no filler words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple reporting tool, the description covers the essential action and the key input for reproduction. It lacks details about the outcome or response, but given no output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, it is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It only elaborates on 'conversation' by saying to include the array for reproduction, but leaves 'context' and 'message' unexplained. Since 'message' is required but self-explanatory, the lack of detail for 'context' is a notable 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 with a specific verb 'Report' and lists three distinct things: bug, missing feature, or feedback. This distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which are all different actions.

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 instructs the user to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction', which is a clear usage directive. It implies this tool is for reporting issues rather than general queries, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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