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

Annotations only declare idempotent/not-read-only; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the free API key requirement with the exact Bearer scheme and key-provisioning endpoint, plus that reports are stored as unverified claims and only published after moderation, and a data-hygiene prohibition on task data, secrets and PII.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then layers prerequisites, provenance and prohibitions in a compact sequence of sentences. Auth endpoint detail is useful but slightly dense for the opening line.

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?

A write tool with no output schema is well covered on auth, idempotency and data handling. It could still say what a successful or rejected report returns, and whether moderation blocks the caller, but the preconditions an agent needs are all present.

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 71% and the enum values are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces referral_id provenance and adds a hygiene rule relevant to task_category, but supplies no format or syntax detail the schema does not already carry.

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 with timing scoped to 'After using a service', so the agent knows exactly what is being recorded. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling send_feedback, which an agent could plausibly confuse with outcome reporting.

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 clear trigger context ('after using a service') and points at get_service as the source of the preferred identifier, so the agent knows the prerequisite flow. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against send_feedback/get_report.

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