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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' suggests a read-only operation, and it discloses that it returns credential state and rate limits. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., unauthenticated), output structure, or whether it consumes rate limits. It provides some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 one succinct sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Report'. It contains no filler, redundancies, or irrelevant details, making it beautifully concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is very simple (0 parameters, no output schema). The description captures its purpose well, but it doesn't specify the exact format or fields returned in 'credential state' and 'rate limits'. Given the simplicity, this is nearly complete, but a bit more detail on return content would push it to 5.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and there's no additional value needed here.

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 the specific verb 'Report' and names concrete resources ('credential state and rate limits'), making it clear this is about the calling agent's own auth/rate limit info. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_merchant or search_merchants, which deal with merchant data.

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?

The description implies usage context ('for the calling agent') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that siblings are for merchant-related queries or that this should be used when needing self-identity/rate limits. Usage guidance is implied, not explicit.

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