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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing server-side redaction of secrets/paths/ids, a write path, a rate limit (100 reports/day per key), cost (no units), and post-write state semantics (record starts unverified until others reproduce it). It also warns what must not be included, which directly shapes safe invocation.

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 purpose and the first-use condition, then procedurally ordered guidance. It is dense but each sentence carries operational information; the mixed-register asides ('it takes no units') and run-on pacing keep it from a 5.

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 10-parameter, nested-schema write tool with an output schema, the description covers selection, timing, exclusion, input constraints, cost, rate limits, and return semantics. 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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by specifying what error_text should contain ('as returned'), what workaround should capture ('the workaround that worked, e.g. pass the key as the api_key argument'), and a critical prohibition on raw payloads and argument values. It stops short of explaining several optional params (lang, notes, lookup_id, error_class) beyond what the schema already says.

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 a tool-call failure you resolved') plus the downstream benefit ('so other agents can skip it'). It is clearly separable from the sibling tools kb_lookup/kb_confirm/kb_dispute, which are named explicitly.

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 explicit preconditions ('Call only after the workaround actually worked, and once per failure') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use it for failures of your own code, or for ones a kb_lookup already knew: confirm those with kb_confirm instead'), naming the correct alternative tool for each excluded case.

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