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

Beyond the annotations (which only say this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write), the description discloses the auth requirement and three concrete rate limits plus a deduplication constraint ('one report per provider/proxy_type/region per minute'). These are exactly the operational traits an agent must know before calling a rate-limited write endpoint.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the auth requirement and limits packed into a single trailing clause. Every element 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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: authentication, throttling, and deduplication. It omits only secondary concerns such as error behavior or visibility of submitted reports, which keeps it short of complete.

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 a healthy 73%, so most parameters are self-documented. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: that provider/proxy_type/region form the uniqueness key, telling the agent which optional fields materially affect acceptance. It adds no format detail for the remaining fields, so it is not a 5.

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 ('Submit a structured status report') plus the scope qualifier 'for a provider you just tested', which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_status or list_incidents. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a provider you just tested' gives a clear situational trigger, and the API-key parenthetical flags a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use get_status to read rather than report).

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