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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description is consistent with that without contradicting it. It adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the one-call-per-request rule, the privacy prohibition on personal data, and the downstream purpose (Flowlines team fixes failures). It does not state that the record cannot be edited or retracted afterwards, which is the main remaining gap given idempotentHint=false.

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 essential instruction (final step, call once) and every sentence carries information. Slightly redundant in places – the 'Flowlines team uses this' rationale and the closing negation are both useful but make it longer than strictly needed.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema description coverage, the description is complete. It covers timing, cardinality, status meaning, unmet_needs content, privacy limits, and false-friend disambiguation – everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all five parameters. The description nonetheless adds intent beyond the schema: it tells the agent what belongs in unmet_needs (things the user asked for that Flowlines could not do) and imposes a privacy constraint on outcome_summary that the schema only mirrors, not enforces.

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 ('report the outcome') and scopes it to the agent's own conversation rather than a Flowlines session, which is the key disambiguation needed against the many get_*/list_*/aggregate_* siblings. An agent can tell what this tool is without opening 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?

Explicit when: 'Final step after you use Flowlines' tools', 'Call report_outcome once when your work on the user's request is done'. Explicit coverage of all cases: 'whether it succeeded, partly succeeded, or failed', plus what to put in unmet_needs. Explicit when-not: 'It reports how your conversation went, not the outcome of a Flowlines session you analyzed.' Nothing is left to inference.

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