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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, and the description resolves that tension by stating 'it changes nothing on the run', which is genuinely useful context. It also confirms the outbound nature of the call (sending data to an external support team), consistent with openWorldHint=true. It does not mention non-idempotency, leaving one annotation trait unexplained.

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 sentences, zero padding, and the core action plus its side-effect disclaimer are front-loaded before the alternative routing hint. Every clause earns its place.

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, non-returning report tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it does not mutate, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 100%, so both runId and note are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates them superficially as 'the run's details and your note'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: report that a run's result is wrong, sending run details plus a note to Relvato's support team. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ignore_finding, so an agent can route 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?

Gives the trigger condition ('a run's result is wrong – it failed or warned about something fine') and names the alternative action with its selecting condition ('To stop being told about a finding, use ignore_finding'). This is explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-the-other routing.

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