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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: it is deprecated and requires FIXLORE_KEY for authentication. It does not describe what the write actually mutates or the effect of running it against an already-reported fix, leaving meaningful behavioral context undisclosed.

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 clauses, one sentence, front-loaded with the deprecation status and followed by the compatibility rationale and auth requirement. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 no explanation, and deprecation plus auth needs are covered. However, for a 12-parameter tool with almost no schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without enough to populate arguments correctly beyond the two required fields.

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 8% across 12 parameters (including a nested environment object), and the description mentions no parameter at all — not even the required id/outcome pair or the outcome enum values. The description does nothing to compensate for the near-total documentation gap.

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 names the exact sibling it duplicates ('report_fix_result') and labels itself a deprecated alias, so an agent immediately knows what it does and how it differs from that sibling. It stops short of stating the operation in its own words (recording a fix outcome), but the alias reference is functionally equivalent and unambiguous.

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?

'kept so existing clients keep working' clearly tells the agent this exists only for backwards compatibility, implying new work should call report_fix_result. It gives the when-to-use condition without an explicit negative instruction or named alternative in imperative form, so not a full 5.

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