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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the guidance to include conversation for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant wording. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Covers the essential use case (reporting issues) and a key hint (conversation for reproduction). However, it omits details like what happens after reporting, whether context is optional, or if message must be a specific format. For a simple tool, adequate but with noticeable 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the purpose of 'conversation' but does not describe 'context' or provide detail on 'message' beyond its name. Message is required but its format or content isn't clarified, and context is left unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Report' and the resources (bug, missing feature, feedback). It distinguishes from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which are unrelated, making the purpose 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?

Provides clear context for when to use (when reporting issues) and instructs to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so usage context is sufficient.

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