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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers: self-reported evidence subject to eligibility checks, correlation with recent retrievals, ranking impact, rate-limit unlocks (doubled per-minute limit with 5+ correlated reports in 30 days), aggregation threshold (5+ distinct reporters in 90 days), and header hashing. This is exceptional transparency for a side-effecting write tool.

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 about 150 words but every sentence carries distinct, essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers eligibility, aggregation, rate limits, and header instructions. No redundancy; the structure follows a logical progression from purpose to caveats to incentives. This is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the essential operational details: what triggers weight, aggregation thresholds, rate-limit consequences, and identity handling. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, report ID) despite having no output schema. Given the tool's complexity (6 params, 2 required) and that return value could matter to an agent, a brief note on response would make it fully complete. This is a minor gap in an otherwise thorough description.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context: it clarifies that the outcome parameter reflects actual use ('ACTUALLY USING') and explicitly states what NOT to report (connection/retrieval tests), which shapes how parameters like outcome and agent_id should be filled. It also clarifies that agent_id must come from the listed retrieval tools. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report the result of ACTUALLY USING a listed provider for a task.' It explicitly excludes testing/connection checks, which sharply distinguishes it from sibling search/compare/rank tools. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from all 18 siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only after actually using a provider, not for testing. It states eligibility conditions (must match your recent retrievals within 48h) and explains consequences of unmatched reports (stored but unweighted). It also instructs on the x-agentery-key header for identity consistency. This is a textbook usage guideline.

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