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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key behavioral traits: 'Read by a human' signals an asynchronous human channel rather than a synchronous tool with a useful structured return, and the closing line explains that reports are how the store becomes aware of agent failures. It does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, persistence), but for a lightweight feedback tool the essential behavioral context is present.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose with concrete examples, the human-read trait, and the usage rule. The purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description plus schema covers purpose, trigger, and parameter semantics. 'Read by a human' also sets expectations about the lack of an immediate structured response, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. A small gap remains: no explicit note about what the agent should expect after the call or how much detail the human needs, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's examples of failure scenarios add general context for what belongs in summary/kind but do not provide parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema. This is adequate but not additive.

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 and resource ('Tell this store') with a clear purpose: communicate something that stopped the agent from completing a task. Concrete examples ('a product you could not price, a variant you could not find, a request that was refused') make the intent unmistakable. It is structurally distinct from all five siblings, which are lookup/read operations, so there is no risk of confusion.

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 an explicit trigger condition: use the tool when blocked or failed, 'instead of giving up silently.' It also explains the consequence of not using it ('a store only learns that an agent failed if the agent says so'), which frames it as the designated failure-report channel. It stops short of explicitly naming when NOT to use it (e.g., success cases), so it misses the full 5.

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