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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), so they carry no information. The description fills this gap by disclosing that reports are fixed same-day when they contain a proper description, and that title-only reports cannot be acted on. This is a useful behavioral expectation beyond the schema, though it doesn't describe side effects or error handling.

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, ~50 words, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key usage rule ('one report per distinct issue') placed immediately. No redundant phrasing; every clause adds value.

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 4-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description should cover all essential semantics. It covers when to use, what to include in the description, and expected outcome, but it leaves 'type' and 'assetId' unexplained (the schema provides only the enum and name). This is a noticeable gap for an agent constructing a proper request.

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 only 25% (only 'description' has a schema description). The tool description adds meaning to the 'description' parameter (what you tried, expected, happened) and implies that 'title' should be concise, but it does not explain 'type' or 'assetId'. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage, this partial coverage is insufficient for full parameter 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: recording issues when a capability is missing, a schema fights you, or docs are wrong. It uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('the owner'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which all handle asset/data operations, not feedback.

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?

It gives clear conditions for when to use the tool ('If a capability is missing, a schema fights you, or docs are wrong') and provides actionable guidance: 'One report per distinct issue' and the requirement for a 'real description' with what you tried, expected, and what happened. Since no alternative feedback tool exists, this is sufficient routing.

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