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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description goes well beyond by disclosing eligibility checks, the 48h correlation window, that unmatched reports are stored but unweighted, the 5-reporter/90-day aggregation threshold, the doubled rate limit at 5+ correlated reports in 30 days, and identity handling via x-agentery-key stored as a hash. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense follow-up sentences all bear on the agent's decision to call and how much the report will count. It is longer than typical but nearly every clause earns its place; minor tightening of the rate-limit and header details would push it higher.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return/effect burden itself and does so: it explains what happens to matched vs unmatched reports, how aggregates surface (reported_success once 5+ reporters exist), and the contributor incentive. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including the outcome enum and the note char cap. The description adds only tangential context (which sibling tools return agent_id) rather than new syntax or format meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (the result of actually using a listed provider) and explicitly excludes a near-miss action (testing Agentery's connection or retrieval). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like search_providers or compare_providers 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('after ACTUALLY USING a listed provider for a task') and when-not-to-use ('testing Agentery's connection or retrieval does not establish that the provider worked'), plus the matching condition that makes a report count (a retrieval naming that provider within 48h). 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.