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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that outcomes are caller-reported, not independently verified, and that only one outcome per recommendation is accepted. It also states the requirement that attempts match the recommended path. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey, providing clear expectations about data provenance and constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical precondition, and each sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. It is tightly written and avoids any fluff.

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?

The description covers preconditions and constraints but does not explain how to structure the attempts array beyond matching the path. It does not mention that cost_eur, latency_ms, etc. are optional or what error_type means. Given the nested object with multiple fields, more guidance would help. An output schema exists, so return value is not needed, but the attempt payload semantics are partially underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives context for recommendation_id and attempts by stating they must match the recommendation and path, but it does not explain individual fields like cost_eur, latency_ms, or quality_score. The nested ProviderAttempt structure has multiple optional fields with no semantic guidance. The description adds value but leaves the agent to infer details from parameter names and types.

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 action (records the caller-reported production outcome) on a specific resource (recommendation_id), and explicitly ties it to recommend_provider. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that read outcomes or stats, and the precondition 'Use only after a real external execution' makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides an explicit usage condition: 'Use only after a real external execution of a provider path returned by recommend_provider.' It also lists constraints (recommendation must exist, one outcome per recommendation, attempts must match path). While it does not name alternative tools, the precondition and the write-vs-read contrast with siblings make usage clear. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, hence 4.

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