Ask the reporter a question

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it declares the real-user side effect, the 'Waiting on you' state transition and how it clears, the return shape, the NO_REPORTER failure mode, and warns that it is NOT idempotent so wording should be confirmed first. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: behavior and side effects come before the routing sentence, and the sibling distinction is placed last. Each clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape ({ comment_id, awaiting_reporter }), the failure mode, and the non-idempotency caveat. For a 3-param write tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents question, reportId, and authorName with aliases and defaults. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: asking the end-user who filed a report a question, and describes the concrete mechanism (appears in their in-app thread, marks report 'Waiting on you'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling reply_to_reporter, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when you need reproduction details'), names the alternative ('use reply_to_reporter for a plain reply'), and states an exclusion (NO_REPORTER for integration-sourced reports). This is complete when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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