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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds key operational constraints not visible in the schema: a recommendation accepts only one outcome, and attempts must match the recommended primary/fallback path. It does not detail side effects, authentication, or failure semantics, but the core write-once behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, front-loaded with purpose and call context. The constraints (id existence, single outcome, path match) are packed into the final sentence without repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential usage context: when to call, what to validate, and what shape the attempts must take. It misses an explicit statement about whether the report is a permanent write and any error/conflict behavior, but the information needed to invoke it correctly is largely present.

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 add parameter meaning. It gives useful constraints for recommendation_id (must exist, one outcome only) and for attempts (must match the recommended path), but it does not explain the individual ProviderAttempt fields such as cost_eur, error_type, latency_ms, or quality_score. This is an adequate but incomplete compensation.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: reporting the real production result of a previous AOPX recommendation. It also orients the agent by tying the call to recommend_provider's returned route, which separates it from the read-only siblings public_outcomes and public_stats.

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 an explicit trigger: call after executing the provider path returned by recommend_provider. It also sets preconditions (recommendation_id must exist, single outcome per recommendation, attempts must match the path). It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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