Report a Web Access failure

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description adds real substance beyond them: reports go to support, consume no Web Access credits, use the configured API key, and must be scrubbed of credentials, cookies, tokens and personal data. It also bounds retry behavior. It does not say what the call returns on success, but with no output schema that is a minor omission for a fire-and-forget diagnostic tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the recovery-first caveat, then a tightly packed exclusion list and a security constraint; nearly every sentence carries a distinct rule. Slightly dense as an unbroken block and the phrase 'a failed String tool call' reads as an artifact, but there is little 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?

For a four-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, exclusions, cadence limits, security redaction, credit cost, and failure handling of the reporter itself. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds content guidance beyond the schema: diagnostics must be compact and free of credentials, cookies, tokens, personal data and unrelated conversation, which directly shapes what belongs in the error, request and response fields. The 'never report the reporter' rule reinforces the tool enum restriction.

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 and resource: report a failed Web Access tool call to support. The enum in the schema pins exactly which sibling tools are reportable and explicitly excludes self-reporting, so the agent can distinguish this from the fetch/search/sitemap tools it is reporting on.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Continue useful recovery first. If reporting remains useful and permitted...'), when-not (usable origin statuses, valid negatives including zeroResults and empty 204s, running sitemap jobs, user cancellations), and a hard cadence rule of at most one report per distinct failure per task rather than per retry. It also tells the agent to stop entirely if the report call itself fails or is rate-limited.

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