Tell the Hydrata team about a capability that is missing

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses a concrete rate limit (20 per day per person), a data-handling constraint (no personal data, keys or file contents), and a follow-up contract (relay `say_to_user` verbatim). The statement that it changes none of the person's data is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false rather than a restatement of 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?

Usage constraints are front-loaded and each sentence carries a distinct rule (precondition, exclusions, content rules, effect, reply handling, quota). Slightly dense with stacked parentheticals, and 'changes none of the person's data' partly overlaps the readOnly annotation, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still tells the agent what to do with the reply (`say_to_user`). For a 2-parameter escalation tool, nothing needed to call it correctly or handle its result 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both fields are already documented, but the description still adds guidance the schema lacks: describe the need rather than a workaround, and never include personal data, keys or file contents. The required `what` field gets one/two-plain-sentences style guidance from the schema rather than the description, which keeps this just under a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — reporting a missing capability to the Hydrata team — and the 'NO existing tool can do' framing immediately separates it from every CRUD/simulation sibling in the list. An agent can identify this as the escalation/feedback channel without inspecting the schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('only when you have checked the other tools and none can do what the person asked') plus two explicit exclusions: never for bugs, and never as a substitute for a tool that already can do it. That is a complete when/when-not rule set with no inference required.

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