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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that only the first report per check counts (reinforcing idempotency), describes the four weighted report tiers, and clarifies that only partner_reported and order_confirmed can raise future confidence. This is meaningful consequence-level information an agent cannot derive from the structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the tier/weighting detail. Dense with useful information and no filler, though the tier list is fairly compact for the weight it carries.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the tiering and idempotency behavior that matters for a write tool. It omits any auth/permission requirement for the partner_reported tier, which would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents check_id, outcome, and evidence in detail. The description connects the evidence object to the 'order_confirmed' tier, but does not explain the note parameter or the fit/no_fit semantics beyond what the enum and schema provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource with clear timing: 'After a purchase, report whether it actually fit.' An agent can immediately tell this is the post-purchase feedback tool, distinct from check_fit or verify_receipt. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 triggering context ('After a purchase') and reassures the caller it is 'Free, safe to call.' However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it is clear-context without exclusions rather than a full routing statement.

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