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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the report may lead to normal support follow-up, Fiveable resolves content and reporter identity, and requestId should be reused on retries. It also sets privacy boundaries about what should not be submitted.

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 four sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary condition, then adds necessary exclusions, follow-up context, and idempotency guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers when to use it, what not to include, what happens after submission, and how to handle retries.

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 coverage is 60%, so the description does not carry the full burden, but it adds value beyond the schema. It clarifies requestId semantics with 'Reuse requestId on retries,' reinforces the description parameter's scope ('Only the issue the student wants reported'), and ties confirmReport to the explicit-student-request condition. It does not add much for contentId or contentType, but those are already well-defined in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a content issue to Fiveable support.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling tools by framing it as a support/report action, not a content retrieval or scoring operation.

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: 'only when the student explicitly asks to report it.' It also gives clear exclusions: do not automatically report disagreements, and do not send conversation history, unrelated notes, or personal information. This is strong usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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