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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true, providing a safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which hints at how the API expects data but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or response behavior. With annotations present, this is acceptable 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 consists of exactly two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a specific usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 relatively simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the overall purpose and one parameter, but omits details about the other parameters, return values, or any prerequisites. Given the weak schema coverage, this is only moderately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only briefly references the 'conversation' parameter via 'Include the conversation array,' but does not explain the required 'message' parameter or the 'context' parameter. This leaves parameter semantics largely unexplained for an agent trying to correctly invoke the tool.

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 and resource: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It also gives a concrete usage hint about including the conversation array, which further clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to report issues or feedback) and even gives a specific instruction (include conversation array). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are unrelated, making the usage context clear. The absence of exclusions is acceptable given the unique purpose.

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