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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds critical behavior not in annotations: it spends nothing and is limited per agent per day. These cost and rate-limit disclosures are useful for deciding whether to call the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by cost/rate-limit constraints. No filler, and every sentence adds information.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing operational context (cost, rate limit) and enough guidance for a simple report tool. No critical invocation information is absent.

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 100%, including full descriptions for sku, kind, and reason, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description restates the kind values in prose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Flag') and enumerates the exact conditions (bad schema, junk/incorrect response, dead SKU), so an agent knows what the tool reports. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling report_outcome, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear when-to-use conditions: flagging a bad schema, junk/incorrect response, or dead SKU. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as report_outcome, so it lacks exclusion/alternative guidance.

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