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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does convey that the tool reports what actually happened and that the report influences future routing, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose prerequisites like the correlation token, idempotency, or error handling. The schema covers the token, but the description alone omits important behavioral details.

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 two sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the action and timing, and the second briefly explains the value. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant content.

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?

Despite the tool having 15 parameters, the required ones are clearly implied: decision_reference and outcome_correlation_token come from the prior decision, and outcome_status is the core. The schema descriptions fill in the field-level details. However, the description does not mention the return value or clarify whether the tool can be called multiple times, leaving some gaps given the lack of an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds richer examples of outcome statuses (timeout, payment or auth failure, unusable result) beyond the schema's 'SUCCESS or FAILURE', which is helpful. However, it does not map these to specific parameters or clarify when to fill optional fields like error_code or observed_latency_ms.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: report the real result after executing an ATL decision. It uses the verb 'report' and specifies the resource (outcome of an ATL decision), and it lists concrete example outcomes (success, failure, timeout, etc.), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling atl_decide which is about making decisions.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after executing an ATL decision', giving clear timing and context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since the only sibling is atl_decide (the precursor), the usage is well understood. The rationale about improving future routing decisions further reinforces when to use it.

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