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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds what annotations cannot: the ask lands in a human-read support inbox, surfaces in the artist's Settings › Support, changes nothing in their catalog, and is the only path to a human. That is high-value behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then destination, then the crucial ordering instruction, then the no-side-effects reassurance. Every sentence earns its place; nothing redundant.

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?

Completes a simple three-param, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already cover safety. All four facts an agent must know to invoke correctly – trigger, destination, ordering, side-effect profile – are present with no important omission.

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 100% and each of the three parameters already has a description ('in their own words', 'the tool you tried or looked for'). The description doesn't add format or constraint details beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

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 action (files the ask in Audora's support inbox) and its scope (no tool exists, or a tool refuses unrecoverably). The name 'report_gap' plus this description makes the tool's job unambiguous relative to siblings, none of which touch support inboxes.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('whenever the artist asks for something there is no tool for, or a tool refuses in a way you cannot work around') and an explicit when ('before you tell the artist no'). This is exactly the routing judgment an agent needs.

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