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 well: it explicitly states what the tool never collects (prompts, request bodies, tokens, advertiser IDs, provider responses, free-form descriptions) and that it never retries or replays an ad operation. These are meaningful behavioral boundaries beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then prerequisite, then behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, and data-handling constraints, which is strong for such a compact definition. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, it leaves parameter semantics and post-submission behavior (e.g., how to check status via support_get_report_status, idempotency usage) largely unaddressed.

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, but it only mentions 'bounded classification fields' and 'tenant-scoped' without explaining any of the 8 parameters, the required idempotency_key, the manual submission_mode const, or the enum semantics. The agent is left to infer most parameter meaning from names and enum values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Manually submit one tenant-scoped TikTok support_ref with bounded classification fields.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling support_get_report_status by signaling this is the submission action rather than a status 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?

It provides clear preconditions: explicit user approval is required, and the agent must 'Read setup_get_status.support_reporting first.' This establishes when to use the tool and a prerequisite step, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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