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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: identical attempt_id values are de-duplicated and do not accumulate counts, and test/related-party submissions are silently filtered out. It still omits what happens on rejection or whether an error is returned for excluded feedback.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the caveats are compressed into a single clause. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 6-required-parameter write tool with a nested object, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It explains de-duplication but not the meaning or format of outcome_id, result, summary, conditions, or idempotency_key, leaving the agent to guess at required inputs.

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% across 6 required parameters, including a nested conditions object with region/environment/limitations. The description only alludes to attempt_id's de-duplication behavior and says nothing about outcome_id, the result enum, summary, or the required condition fields. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Record one task's reported reuse'), so the agent knows this writes a reuse report tied to a single task. It never names or contrasts with likely siblings such as submit_outcome or get_outcome, so differentiation is left to inference. 'Reuse' is domain jargon that is not unpacked.

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 gives useful edge-case guidance: a repeated attempt_id does not add counts, and test plus known related-party feedback is excluded. However, it offers no when-to-use-this-vs-submit_outcome/respond_to_request framing, nor any prerequisites or sequencing relative to other tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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