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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations state; it doesn't explain auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens after reporting (e.g., whether the bug is stored). It also doesn't mention that idempotency might be expected. No contradiction, but minimal added value.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a concrete usage guideline. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and a description that covers only one parameter. The description doesn't specify whether the tool returns a confirmation, error handling, or if there are prerequisites (e.g., authentication). Given the tool's complexity (bug reporting), it lacks details on what constitutes a valid 'message' or 'context,' making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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. The description only explains 'conversation' as 'recent messages for reproduction,' which adds context. However, 'message' and 'context' are undefined in the description, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose. The description fails to fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 resource ('bug' or 'feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings by implying the ability to send feedback, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with marketplace or tribunal tools. The inclusion of 'missing feature' broadens the purpose but remains clear.

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 gives a clear instruction: 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' This tells the agent when to use it (for reporting issues) and provides a key guideline (include conversation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like 'marketplace' for feature requests, leaving some ambiguity.

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