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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it scopes results to 'this account' and indicates the output includes the status ('where each one stands') of each filed report. This goes beyond the structured fields and gives the agent a good sense of what to expect.

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 two short sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what data it scopes to, and when to use it. No critical information is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Under the rules, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 action: reporting the account's filed reports and their statuses. The use-case example 'did that bug I reported ever get fixed?' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_feedback (which files reports) and build_report (which likely creates new reports), even though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete scenario ('did that bug I reported ever get fixed?') that tells an agent when to use this tool. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough to route an agent to the right tool for status-checking.

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