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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds only the 'conversation array for reproduction' detail, not additional behavioral consequences like data transmission, storage, or external effects of submitting a report.

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, front-loaded with purpose followed by one actionable usage detail. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 3-parameter reporting tool, the description provides core purpose and a key usage note. However, it leaves the 'context' parameter unexplored and does not explain the submission side effects, so it is minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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% and the description only explains the 'conversation' parameter, clarifying it should contain recent messages for reproduction. 'message' and 'context' remain unexplained, leaving most parameters ambiguous despite the low schema coverage.

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 uses an explicit verb ('Report') and identifies specific purposes: bugs, missing features, or feedback. This clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, show_version, and sefaz_pb_ipva_consultar.

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 first sentence clearly states when to use the tool: when reporting a bug, missing feature, or sending feedback. It instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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