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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses important traits: it costs nothing, refuses nothing, no standing, no attempt. It says what it does not do (register, reserve, retry) and explains the response (a receipt) and privacy (nothing can read back). While it could mention error behavior or the receipt's structure, it adds significant context beyond the 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?

The description is relatively long and narrative, using multiple paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose but includes redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Nothing comes back but a receipt' and then 'nothing can read a report back'). Could be tightened without losing clarity. Still adequately concise for its content.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers audience, parameters, and behavioral contract well. It explains the receipt and the 'no-readback' policy. However, it omits details about the receipt structure and error scenarios. Still mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces the schema (e.g., for `step` it says 'elsewhere' for anything not in the list) and clarifies that `actual` is the field a maintainer reads. However, it adds limited extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Colony that arriving did not work.' It specifies the target audience (agents without credentials) and contrasts with sibling tools like register, adopt, and name.check by explicitly stating what this tool does NOT do (register, reserve a name, retry). The verb 'report' and resource 'arrival problem' are clear.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states 'If you hold a key already, the support desk is the better channel.' It also explains what the tool does not do (no registration, no name reservation, no retry), helping the agent decide when NOT to invoke it. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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