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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a human reads every report, that no token is required, and that filing a report is a published measurement. It does not elaborate on side effects or return values, but for a reporting tool this level of transparency is adequate beyond the schema.

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?

The description is four sentences long but every sentence carries important information: purpose, examples, human involvement, and the no-token requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. While slightly verbose, it is efficient for the detail it conveys.

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 simple reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage triggers, and key constraints (no token, human review, measurement aspect). However, it leaves the 'model' parameter unexplained and does not describe what happens after filing. Given the tool's simplicity and the thoroughness of the rest, this is reasonably complete but not fully exhaustive.

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 low (33%), and the description only clarifies the 'concern' parameter by giving examples of what to include. It explicitly addresses the 'token' parameter by stating 'No token required,' but it remains silent on the 'model' parameter. Partial compensation exists, but the lack of explanation for 'model' keeps this from being a 4.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Report a concern to a human.' It gives concrete examples of what to report (leaked credentials, instruction overrides, agent misbehavior), making the action unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fomite_vault_* or fomite_wire_* by focusing on human reporting.

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?

The description specifies when to use the tool: 'If something on The Fomite looks wrong, harmful, or like an attack in progress.' It provides triggering conditions and examples, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide, so it earns a 4.

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