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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious consequence — that this call feeds library ranking — but omits whether it is a write/mutation, whether it is idempotent, and any permission requirements.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the behavioral consequence placed before the arg list. No padding, though the trailing 'Args:' list is slightly redundant for a two-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the bar is higher. The description covers the core invocation trigger and argument names but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what the agent gets back, leaving moderate gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters and the type of 'ok' (boolean), which covers the two required args, but adds no meaning about the slug format or the semantics of the ok flag beyond its type.

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 whether an installed recipe worked, scoped to the bot-library namespace. It is distinguishable from siblings like library_install and library_publish, though it is not explicitly separated from library_report, which the phrase 'report whether it worked' could be confused with.

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 a clear trigger condition ('after running an installed recipe'), which implies when the tool should be called. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit routing against the similarly named library_report sibling, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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