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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the authentication requirement and exact header format, the key-provisioning endpoint, that reports are stored as unverified claims and only published after moderation, and an explicit data-hygiene prohibition on task data, secrets and PII. None of this is derivable from readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational weight (auth, key endpoint, referral_id sourcing, moderation, privacy). It is dense but not padded, though the inline key-acquisition URL and header example make it slightly bottom-heavy.

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 mutation tool with seven parameters and no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: auth, prerequisite data source, data-privacy constraints and the post-submission lifecycle. It does not explain the required idempotency_key's role or the failure_kind taxonomy, leaving the schema to carry that.

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?

With 71% schema coverage, the schema already documents operation, service_id, referral_id (including 'Preferred'), task_category and idempotency_key. The description mainly restates the referral_id-from-get_service relationship, adding little semantic detail about the enum values (failure_kind, outcome) or how to choose service_id vs referral_id.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource tied to a clear trigger ('after using a service, report whether it worked'), which is enough to separate it from the read-side siblings like get_report. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 timing of use ('after using a service') and the prerequisite workflow (get a key via the listed POST endpoint, quote referral_id from get_service). There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the context is unambiguous for a report-submission tool.

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