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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the report feeds rankings ('Rankings improve from these reports') and there is a hard privacy constraint ('never task text, prompts or paths'). It does not state whether duplicate reports are deduplicated/enforced, what error or return behavior to expect, or any auth requirement, so it falls short of fully transparent for a write-like tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-report rule before the parameter and privacy details; every sentence carries information. The backticked field list is a bit packed but not wasteful.

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 six-parameter reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what to report, how often, how to resolve the identifier, and the privacy boundary. Remaining gaps (response shape, dedupe/error behavior) are modest given the tool's narrow, fire-and-forget purpose.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines `entry` precisely (registry name, sourced from get_entry via url or package) and flags `success` as required, and it enumerates the allowed structured fields, but capability_tag, latency_bucket, runtime, and error_class are only named, not explained beyond their self-describing enum values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'After a task used an MCP server, report once per server whether it worked.' It also distinguishes the two source cases (servers found via lookupd vs. already installed) and names the get_entry sibling as the way to obtain the entry name, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not.

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?

Timing ('after a task used an MCP server'), cadence ('once per server'), coverage ('servers found via lookupd ... and servers already installed alike'), a prerequisite (use get_entry with url or package for installed servers), and an explicit skip condition ('skip the report if there is no entry') are all stated. Little is left to inference about when to call this versus get_entry.

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