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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the no-free-text design, the aggregate counting, the anonymity guarantee ("no address, no header, no identifier"), the absence of any reply, and that a prefilled tracking link is returned. It even explains the rationale (prompt-injection surface), which is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 what to report and when to call it, before the design rationale and privacy notes. It is longer than typical and the all-caps sentence plus the triple privacy list are slightly emphatic, but each sentence carries non-redundant 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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: the trigger, the required format, the enum mapping, what is returned, the anonymity/no-reply expectation, and that it is free and optional. No meaningful gaps remain.

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 real meaning beyond the schema: it reinforces that subject is not a sentence, gives accepted character classes, and explicitly states wallet/contract addresses are refused in favor of a ticker or path. The kind enum values are also tied to their triggering miss conditions.

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?

States a specific action (send a report) and enumerates the exact kinds of gaps it covers (missing stock, listing, field, tool, wrong figure, broken path), which no sibling tool does — all siblings are read/fetch tools. An agent can tell instantly that this is the meta/feedback channel rather than a data source.

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?

"Call this when another tool has just answered with a miss - the answer names the kind to send" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to sibling behavior, and "Reporting costs nothing and is never required" clarifies it is optional. Nothing about when vs. when-not is left implicit.

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