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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds guidance on including conversation data for reproduction, but does not disclose additional side effects or behaviors beyond what annotations cover. 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 extremely concise at two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with few parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and one key parameter. However, it omits details on the 'context' parameter and what happens after reporting (e.g., response, ticket creation). Still sufficient for basic use.

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 compensate but only partially explains the 'conversation' parameter ('Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction'). The required 'message' is implied by the purpose but not detailed, and 'context' is not mentioned at all. Many parameters lack semantic clarity.

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 identifies the resource (bug/feedback). The tool is distinct from sibling tools, which are mostly Open Finance related, so no confusion.

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 implies when to use the tool (when encountering a bug or needing to send feedback) and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but given the uniqueness of this tool among siblings, it's clear.

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