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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that by describing what is persisted (a redacted report), what is emitted (a notification to AdsAgent support), the idempotency contract, and a privacy prohibition on credentials/customer data. No contradiction with the write/destructive annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences with the action front-loaded, then side effects, then trigger conditions, then retry and privacy rules. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the two non-enumerated operational parameters plus the safety constraint. It stops short of clarifying the connection_context token or the meaning of submission_mode, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate; it explains support_ref and idempotency_key semantics well, and its warning implicitly scopes what may go into the free-text fields. The remaining six parameters (client, task_stage, user_impact, submission_mode, observation_code, connection_context) are left entirely to their enums and pattern regex, which is only partly self-explanatory.

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 verb and resource ('Submit an error or incorrect-data report') plus the key input ('using the most recent support_ref'), and discloses the side effects (saves a redacted report, queues a support notification). This separates it cleanly from the sibling support_get_report_status, which is a read.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('after two repeated failures or a user's data discrepancy') and retry guidance ('reuse the same idempotency_key'). It does not name the alternative sibling (support_get_report_status) for checking a filing, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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