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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: feedback is reviewed by the team, nobody replies to this channel, and it specifies what kind of feedback is appropriate. Annotations are neutral (no readOnly, no destructive hints), and the description does not contradict them.

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 well-structured with clear examples and exclusions. It is front-loaded with purpose and then details. Though slightly long, every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for agents to understand the tool's purpose and how to report issues. It covers the types of problems and what to include.

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 schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and explicitly lists the types of problems (data errors, missing data, docs unclear, tool problems) that fall under this tool. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_search, get_workspace, etc., which serve different purposes.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use ('Report something wrong or missing') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use this to contact a property owner...', 'Enquiries and viewings go through the listing page'). It also gives guidance on sending one clear report rather than several.

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