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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: the outcome is published, the possible verdicts are named (not_a_miss / miss), and it adds unusual but relevant context about incentive routing ('paid to the wallet... never to whoever reported it') and auth ('No key needed'). It does not cover idempotency/repeat reporting, which keeps it from a 5.

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 trigger and action, then supports it with the meaning of the verdict and payment behavior. Every sentence is substantive; the density is high but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle position, the possible outcomes, what happens on a covered miss, and that no key is needed. Output format isn't described, but no output schema exists to lean on, so a minor gap remains.

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%, with both 'id' and 'signature' fully documented in the schema (including pattern and provenance). The description mentions reporting 'its signature' but adds no format or provenance detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('report its signature' after a landed transaction) and clearly situates itself in the post-landing phase of the preflight lifecycle. It implicitly separates itself from preflight_check (which is pre-action), though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It states the precise trigger condition: use this after a transaction Preflight allowed has landed. That is clear context for when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., preflight_verdict) for retrieving the outcome another way.

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