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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the write's side effects: card creation on the dispatcher's inbox and paging for the 'problem' and 'late' signals only. It also explains the confirmation protocol in detail: the call returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token, and the write occurs only via confirm_action — a state machine an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 core action, followed by side effects, the trip_id rule, and the confirmation protocol in a tight sequence. Every clause carries information; no restatement of the tool name or padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description still describes the response shape during the proposal phase (status, action_id, plan_token) and names confirm_action as the completion path. For a 3-parameter, low-complexity write tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 33% (only 'signal' is annotated), but the description compensates by explaining trip_id optionality semantics and by clarifying that 'note' carries the driver's own words. The signal values are given lightly glossed meanings ('arrived' at the point, 'released' from it) rather than full definitions, so it stops short of complete parameter documentation.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Record that the driver reported something from the road') and enumerates the four signals, then names the downstream effect (a card on the dispatcher's inbox, a page for problem/late). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like logistics_set_trip_status or logistics_record_trip_weights without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a precise conditional rule for trip_id: omit when the driver has exactly one active trip, supply it when there are several, with the rationale ('a report filed against the wrong haul is worse than one with no haul at all'). It does not name an alternative tool for cases that are not signal reports, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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