rh11_orders_report_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a rate limit (max 5 per order) and instructs not to retry, which are key operational traits. However, it does not disclose the outcome of reporting (e.g., ticket creation, response format) or any required permissions.

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 sentences: the first states purpose, the second packs constraints (limit, retry instruction, character range). No wasted words.

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 2-param tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the critical constraint (max 5 reports) and input requirements. It lacks return-value information, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage (order_id as 'Order identifier' and description with min/max). The description repeats the character limit but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Report an issue with a Rhodium11 order,' which clearly identifies the action (report), target (order), and context (issue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rh11_orders_get (read operations) and rh11_feedback_submit (general feedback).

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 provides explicit usage constraints: 'Maximum 5 issue reports per order — do not retry if you receive a limit error,' and specifies the character range. It does not directly compare to alternatives, but the order-specific scope implies the appropriate use case.

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