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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It says the report goes to the Agent Rynku team but does not state that a ticket is created, whether a confirmation/ID is returned, or how status changes are communicated. The callback_url parameter hints at asynchronous updates, but the description itself omits this behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact, but it is so minimal that it misses useful behavioral and routing details that could have been included without much length.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and a write side effect, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after submission, what response to expect, or how this relates to the sibling list_feature_requests/claim_feature_request flow. The rich parameter schemas help, but the overall call contract remains incomplete.

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 88%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and mostly summarizes the 'type' choices (bug, idea, missing data). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description neither significantly helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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 clear action ('Zgłoszenie' = submit/report) and a clear resource (the Agent Rynku team), and it expands beyond the tool name by listing categories: bug, idea, or missing data. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like claim_feature_request or list_feature_requests, so it loses the fifth point.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as claim_feature_request or list_feature_requests. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context-dependent routing cues; the agent must infer the intended use from the name and sibling list.

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