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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a successful receipt means the report was recorded, not fixed, and no reply is guaranteed. It also discloses that repeated matching open reports increment request_count, which is a concrete rate/dedupe behavior an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Five sentences, all functional, with the purpose front-loaded before constraints and receipt semantics. There is mild duplication between the privacy admonition and the schema's 'Summarize errors without sensitive payloads' note, but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter, four-required submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, content guidance, privacy limits, and what the response does and does not mean — everything an agent needs to submit a well-formed report and interpret success.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by telling the agent what to write in each field — concise goal/expected/actual summaries, include tool_name and error_code when known — and by constraining content with an explicit sensitive-data exclusion list (conversations, CV contents, credentials, tokens, contact details, URL query strings).

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 uses a specific verb (report) plus an enumerated set of resources — an incomplete operation, a missing capability, or unexpected behavior — matching the category enum. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like report_job, though it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

'Use only for an observed problem, and never report a failure of report_problem itself recursively' gives an explicit when-to-use and a clear when-not. What is missing is any comparison to the closest sibling (report_job), leaving the agent to infer that job-listing problems go elsewhere.

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