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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the report is published publicly next to Faceabot's own measurements and affects picks for every agent — an important consequence for an agent about to write a public signal.

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?

Purpose comes first in a single sentence, followed by the consequence and one compact example — no filler. The example is worth its space, though the phrasing "Published next to Faceabot's own measurements" is slightly dense for what it conveys.

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 non-idempotent, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description omits what happens on success, whether repeated submissions are deduplicated (relevant given idempotentHint=false), and whether any identity is required. The core rule and its public-visibility consequence are covered, so it is serviceable but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the inline JSON example adds semantics the schema lacks: the concrete shape of `tool_id` as a namespaced identifier ("io.github.example/ocr") rather than just the prose "Id from solve_need or find_capability." The optional `note` parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — report whether a tool from Faceabot worked — which is immediately actionable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `log_task_outcome`, which reads like an overlapping outcome-reporting tool, so an agent has to guess which one applies.

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?

Usage is only implied: calling it after trying a tool is the obvious reading of "Say whether a tool from Faceabot worked." There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative — notably nothing about how this differs from `log_task_outcome` or when to combine with `check_reliability`.

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