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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this sends only the listed fields to a discovery queue, does not fetch or index, is best-effort, and should not be retried or announced. It also provides explicit privacy constraints about never sending prompts, code, private URLs, credentials, or user context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers on operational rules. It is dense but each sentence carries actionable guidance; the only minor cost is that the single paragraph packs several distinct constraints together.

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 fire-and-forget reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is sent, what is not done in this call, how to proceed afterward, failure handling, privacy limits, and skip conditions. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without expecting a synchronous result.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already documented. The description reinforces that the version is the 'exact version sought' and that docs/llms.txt URLs should be observed public URLs, but it mostly repeats the schema rather than adding new syntax or format guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'report of public documentation missing from llmref.' It also clarifies the submission target ('discovery queue') and that no fetching or indexing happens in this call, distinguishing it from the lookup-oriented siblings.

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 explains when to report (missing public documentation), what to include (exact version and observed docs/llms.txt URLs), and when not to call ('Skip if reporting is disallowed or would require interrupting the user for permission'). It also tells the agent to continue with other sources rather than wait for ingestion or retry failures.

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