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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does real work: it declares the call is cheap, carries no error payload, transmits metadata only, and never sends arguments or results. It omits auth/permission requirements, idempotency or duplicate-report behavior, and any 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?

Front-loaded with the action, then rationale, then payload/privacy constraints — a sensible order. The middle sentence is somewhat discursive ('This matters more than it sounds...'), but it earns its place by justifying the tool's existence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the privacy boundary (metadata only, never arguments or results) is stated explicitly. For a 6-parameter telemetry write tool with no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; only permission/rate-limit behavior is unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including naming conventions and hashing. The description's summary of what is carried (service/operation/version/latency) adds only framing, not new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Report that a tool call SUCCEEDED'), which is directly distinguishable from the siblings report_tool_failure and check_tool_failure. An agent can pick this tool without ambiguity.

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 explanation of why success reporting matters (failure rate is failures/total, so failure-only reporting produces wrong statuses) effectively tells the agent to report on success, not just failure, which is the key routing decision against its siblings. It stops short of an explicit 'call this after every successful call, including on retries' rule or naming the sibling tools.

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