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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: reports are stored as AGENT REPORTED and explicitly do not affect evidence labels, trust, or ranking, plus a privacy note that no task text is retained. The non-idempotent, non-readonly write profile from annotations is neither contradicted nor contradicted-dependent, but the trust/ranking disclaimer is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the storage/trust disclaimer, then the input constraint. Nothing is padded, though the final sentence largely restates schema enforcement.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers flags and privacy but leaves most optional telemetry parameters unexplained and does not mention that failure_reason pairs with success=false. Adequate for the core call, incomplete for correct use of the optional fields.

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 only 38%, so the description must carry more weight, yet it explains no parameter semantics. Fields such as cost_usd, tokens_in/out, latency_ms, tool_calls, baseline_cost_estimate_usd, used_capability, and success are undocumented in both the schema and the description; the 'only the listed fields are accepted' line merely restates additionalProperties=false.

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 and resource: reporting how a capability performed. The name 'report_outcome' plus 'Report how a capability worked for you' makes the action unambiguous, and the surrounding siblings (evaluate_capability, unlock_capability) are distinguishable as different phases of the capability lifecycle.

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?

Usage context is implied (report after using a capability) and the description clarifies the consequence of reporting, but it never states when to use this versus evaluate_capability or what preconditions apply. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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