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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; the description goes further by explaining the 24-hour dedupe behavior (consistent with idempotentHint), the 24-hour counting rule, the authentication prerequisite (connected Warp account), and explicit data-handling rules for PII. That is substantial behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey, with no contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the primary trigger, then prerequisites and constraints. Every sentence carries operational information, though the single dense paragraph is longer than strictly necessary and could be split for scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the whole burden, and it does: when to file, when not to re-file, what the tool does not do, auth requirements, and data-handling limits. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly without additional context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine parameter-level guidance: 'Describe the problem in your own words' for the free-text fields and a concrete allow/deny list for content (no API keys, cards, passwords, names, emails, phones, addresses; ZIP/quote/shipment IDs are fine). That directly constrains how the summary, expected_behavior and observed_behavior fields should be filled.

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: 'Report a problem with Warp's tools to the Warp team.' That is distinct from every sibling (booking, quoting, tracking, automation tools) and tells an agent exactly what this tool produces: a filed report, not an action on the user's shipment.

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 enumerates the triggering conditions (tool errors, wrong-looking results, unactionable answers, missing capability) and states the key exclusions: report once per distinct problem, only after telling the user, and dedupes within 24 hours. It also explicitly says the tool does not retry, rebook, cancel or change anything, so the agent must still handle the request itself — a clear when-not signal.

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