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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing cost ('charges nothing'), the absence of retry/refund side effects, and that no in-session reply is returned. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a fire-and-forget reporting 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?

A single dense sentence: trigger, action, required traceability fields, and behavioral caveats, all front-loaded with zero 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 the description pre-empts the main agent confusion ('no in-session reply') for a non-readOnly, non-idempotent reporting tool. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 four parameters. The description only adds the motivation for call_id and tool ('so it can be traced') and says nothing about the message or context payload. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ('File a bug report with the Locus team') plus the triggering condition ('after a wrong result or error'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_call_result, list_calls, or execute, none of which file reports.

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 a clear when-to-use trigger (after a wrong result or error) and an implied not-to-use for normal successful flows. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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