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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it explains that the tool does not itself file the report but 'Returns a link to submit the report', which clarifies the read-only, non-committing behavior. It does not cover rate limits or auth, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter, no-required-args reporting tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description plus structured fields are sufficient for correct invocation. Only minor gaps remain (no note on what happens if details are omitted, no auth/rate 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters ('summary' and 'details') are documented in the schema, including the reproduction-detail expectation. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Report a bug') with an added scope note ('or something unexpected'), so the agent knows exactly what this tool does. No sibling differentiation is offered, but no sibling (create_post, delete_media, etc.) is close enough to be confused with it, so the omission is low-cost.

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?

'Report a bug or something unexpected' implies the trigger condition for using the tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative or escalation path, so usage is only implied.

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