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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful context that the conversation array is included 'for reproduction,' but does not disclose other side effects, such as where the report is sent or whether users receive confirmation. This is adequate for a simple reporting tool but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the reproduction instruction is placed directly after it. Every sentence contributes.

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?

Given a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the most important optional input. However, the 'context' field is undocumented, and a required 'message' field relies on inference rather than explicit definition. This leaves clear but minor gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the 'conversation' parameter as recent messages for reproduction, but leaves 'context' completely unexplained and only implies that 'message' is the report text. This is partial compensation for one of three parameters.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It is immediately distinct from the sibling calculo_* tools, which are all calculation-related. The purpose 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?

The description explicitly enumerates the situations where the tool applies: bug reports, missing features, and feedback. It includes a concrete reproduction instruction, telling the agent to attach the conversation array. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed given the unrelated sibling set.

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