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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the return value ('any existing route that already handles it, plus a log id'), the pooling/building behavior, and cost/auth ('Free, no key'). It omits retention or rate-limit behavior, though the private flag in the schema partially covers data storage.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then examples, then return/behavior/cost in three tight sentences. The example list is dense but directly actionable and every sentence 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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the trigger, the return shape, and the cost/auth model, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of explaining how the individual parameters shape matching.

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 86%, so the schema already documents target, purpose, description, failure_type, private and max_price_usd. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond a passing reference to 'your description, purpose and error text', so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('request an action you could not complete') and enumerates the exact failure conditions that qualify. It is clearly distinct in intent from request_data and report_failure, but it never names either sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Strong trigger guidance: 'Call this when you tried to do something for your user and could not finish it', followed by a concrete list of blocking scenarios (no API, CAPTCHA, login, phone-only, portal blocks automation). It gives no when-not-to-use cases and no explicit routing to the sibling tools.

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