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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: outcomes are 'unverified anonymous evidence with zero canonical reputation weight.' This tells the agent that reports carry no reputation impact, which is not available in any structured field. It meaningfully discloses the consequence and trustworthiness of the action.

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 consists of two tightly packed sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the behavioral caveat placed second. No word is wasted, and the structure helps an agent quickly grasp what the tool does and its trust implications.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that `consumeId` must reference a prior consumption action, how `idempotencyKey` should be used (despite idempotentHint), or what happens after reporting. The agent lacks essential information to call the tool correctly in context.

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 for parameter meaning. It only implicitly maps to the `outcome` parameter by mentioning success/partial/failure; it does not explain `consumeId`, `idempotencyKey`, or `reason`. Since 3 of 4 parameters are entirely undocumented, the compensation is insufficient.

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 ('Report') and resource ('your own Candy consumption'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like candy_consume or candy_get_receipt by its reporting function. It also adds precision with the three outcome classes (success, partial, failure).

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 phrase 'your own Candy consumption' implies the tool is for self-reporting and excludes reporting for others, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it relative to alternatives (e.g., after candy_consume, before candy_get_receipt). No direct when-not or sibling comparison is provided, so usage context is only implied.

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