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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower. The description adds context annotations cannot convey: this data feeds code verification and is a hard requirement for free-tier callers, which materially affects whether an agent must call it.

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 short sentences: the action first, then the consequence and obligation. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 four-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and obligation adequately. Minor gaps remain around what happens on a repeat report and whether any response is returned, though the idempotent hint partially covers the former.

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 100% and the enum values and the 'report when applied is false' rule are already spelled out in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as format, slug conventions, or handling of duplicate reports.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — reporting the outcome of a code attempt at checkout — which is plainly distinct from lookups like check_code or find_codes. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It states a clear triggering condition (after a code is tried at checkout) and adds a mandatory policy for free-tier callers. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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