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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key guarantee: the report never punishes, excludes, or modifies another agent, which clarifies side effects. It also indicates the report is stored for independent review. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail persistence, return values, or idempotency. The added constraint is meaningful and useful.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the key constraint is stated immediately. Every word earns its place; the description is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has one parameter (a nested object) and no output schema. The description explains the purpose (recording facts for review) and the non-effect guarantee, which covers the main usage context. It does not specify the exact structure of the envelope beyond the schema's minimal description, but given the flexible additionalProperties, this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool without further clarification.

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% because the single parameter 'envelope' has a description. The tool description adds context about the envelope's contents ('bounded facts and an evidence hash'), which is helpful but not specific to parameter syntax. Since the schema already describes the envelope as a signed protection.report action, the description's contribution is marginal; it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Record') and resource ('bounded facts and an evidence hash'), and immediately clarifies its scope with 'A report alone never punishes, excludes or modifies another agent.' This distinguishes it from potential punitive or modifying tools and clearly differentiates from the sibling 'verify_ai_protection_report' (which checks existing reports rather than submitting new ones). The purpose is precise and actionable.

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 implies this tool is for recording facts for later independent review, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_ai_protection_report' or other submission tools, and it offers no exclusion criteria. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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