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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it is a write operation ('File') but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, response format, or error conditions. The reference to POST /api/reports hints at the underlying behavior but does not explain it.

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 a single, focused sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. The parenthetical API reference adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is overly sparse. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or how success/failure manifests. The API reference is only helpful if the agent knows that endpoint, which is not assumed. Significant information is missing.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It only hints at geolocation via the word 'geolocated', but does not clarify lat/lon, category, severity, or description. The schema's property names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action ('File') and the resource ('manual geolocated incident report'), and explicitly maps to POST /api/reports, giving precise semantics. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which are all retrieval or dashboard operations.

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 conveys that this is for creating a report manually and that it is geolocated, which implies the use case. Given that all siblings are read-oriented, the tool is obviously the write alternative, though no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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