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

Annotations only declare the mechanical flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds the genuinely non-obvious behavior that a human reviews the report within 24 hours, setting an async expectation the agent would otherwise lack. It stops short of saying what the call returns immediately (e.g., a ticket id or acknowledgement), leaving a modest gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the failure condition, then the precondition, then the turnaround expectation. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter, fully documented schema with no output schema, the description covers the decision context (verify_badge twice), the diagnostic content expected, and the human-review SLA. The only missing piece is what the tool returns synchronously, which matters slightly more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 both parameters (message, submission_token) already carry their own guidance including the 20-1500 character range and the source of the token. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb ('report') and specific resource ('badge check is wrong'), and immediately scopes it: 'the badge is installed and visible but we cannot find it.' That framing makes it unmistakably distinct from verify-badge and check-status, which are the siblings it could otherwise be confused with.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — 'Only use this after verify_badge has failed twice and you have confirmed the badge really is live on the page' — which both names the alternative tool and states when it must not be used. This is exactly the when/when-not structure that prevents premature escalation.

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