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

Annotations already indicate that this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds the reproduction requirement of including conversation data. However, it does not disclose what happens to the report after submission, whether sensitive data is transmitted, or what response the caller should expect.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. Each sentence provides a useful part of the usage model: the tool's purpose and the key reproduction requirement.

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 reporting tool with three flat, string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the most important call detail. The main shortfall is not missing broad context but absent parameter-level documentation.

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 is responsible for clarifying parameters. It only hints at the conversation property, referring to it as an array even though the schema types it as a string; it does not explain the message property's format or the context property's purpose.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and clearly enumerates the covered scopes: bug, missing feature, and feedback. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or tribunal_trf5_processo_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 description explicitly states when to use the tool and instructs the agent to include the conversation array for reproduction. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, though the sibling tools make the differentiation straightforward.

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