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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses what happens to the report (weekly review, non-authoritative), the auth requirement ('needs your key'), and a hard rate limit ('at most 20 a day'). This is exactly the operational context the readOnlyHint=false / non-idempotent / non-destructive annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the failure reasons, then the consequence, then the operational constraints. No filler, and the enum glosses are compact rather than repetitive.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, auth, and rate limits. The only real gap is the un-explained url/note/agent_id parameters, which an agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the kind enum values with parenthetical definitions (fake_pass 'does not check out', copied_pass, sham_orders), but url, note, and agent_id are left entirely unexplained. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

Specific verb (report) plus a precisely scoped resource (a Word Pass that looks wrong), with the five report categories spelled out. It implicitly separates itself from verdict-generating siblings by stating the report 'never a verdict on its own', so an agent can place it against verify_pass/check_word_pass without opening a 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?

The description gives clear situational context (something looks wrong, feeds the weekly review) and rules out misuse as a verdict. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use-this condition, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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