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

With no annotations providing behavioral hints (readOnly, destructive, openWorld all false), the description must carry the full burden and it does not. It fails to mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or any behavioral expectations of the tool.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for readability, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

Given the tool involves a nested object and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the request structure, expected response, or any contextual details about terminal error submission, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'request' of type object with no defined properties, and the description does not explain what should be included in 'request'. Schema coverage is 0%, leaving the agent with no information about how to construct the parameter.

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 ('Submit') and the target ('a terminal error to support'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is distinct from sibling tools like support_get_report_status, but the term 'terminal error' is slightly ambiguous without further context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that would trigger its use.

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