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

Beyond annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: the report is free and never charged, capped at 10 per day, stores the URL without its query string, reason, and note for 90 days, and warns against personal data in the note. These details are exactly the kind of retention, rate-limit, and privacy context annotations cannot convey.

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 action and purpose, then adds only essential constraints and privacy details. Every sentence earns its place: reporting intent, usage limits, data retention, and the personal-data warning.

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 simple three-parameter reporting tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context an agent needs: when to report, what happens to the data, retention period, rate limit, and privacy constraint. Annotations already cover safety hints, so this is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents url, note, and reason well. The description adds useful parameter-related meaning by stating that the URL is stored without its query string and that the note should not contain personal data, though it does not further explain reason semantics beyond the enum description.

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 and resource: telling AgentReader that a read failed or looked wrong, with concrete failure examples such as empty, wrong content, cut off, and blocked. It clearly separates this reporting action from sibling tools like read_url and search, which perform reads rather than issue reports.

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 gives clear triggering conditions: use this when a read failed or looked wrong, with examples of failure modes. It also adds operational constraints such as free use, max 10 per day, and a privacy warning, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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