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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: reports are published next to Faceabot's own measurements and improve recommendations for every agent, which discloses that this write is publicly visible and shared. It omits any auth or rate-limit context.

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 tight sentences: purpose, precondition, example. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 small three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the call does, when to make it, and where the data goes. Minor gaps remain around whether a prior report can be revised and whether the call returns anything, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 three parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The inline example restates the required pair without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (report) and resource (whether a recommended tool worked), and names the sibling tools that produce the tool_id it consumes. An agent can distinguish this from solve_need or find_capability without opening any schema.

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?

"Use when: you actually tried a tool from solve_need or find_capability" gives a clear precondition tied to named siblings, which is strong guidance. It does not state when NOT to report (e.g. partial results, tool never invoked), so it falls just short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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