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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotent/openWorld safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real value: the idempotency outcome ('adding twice says it was already added') and the destination ('the inbox it indicated'). It does not cover auth/permission needs, which is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 originating condition before the action. 'the same tap the reader has under the briefing' is slightly colloquial but contextual, not filler. Nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, destination, and idempotency. Missing only edge behavior on failure, which is minor given the annotation coverage.

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% and the single report_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the investigation id. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: it adds a proposed feed that report_missing_story generated, routing it into the indicated inbox. It names the originating sibling (report_missing_story), which anchors the purpose well. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from add_feed/create_source, but the origin story makes the role clear.

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?

Usage is implied through the scenario: use this after report_missing_story has proposed a source. There is no explicit when-not or direct routing advice against the closely related add_feed or create_source siblings. An agent can infer the trigger but is left to reason about alternatives itself.

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