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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a write that is not read-only, not idempotent and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: outcomes are retained for internal analysis and never published as-is. It still omits what happens on a duplicate report despite idempotentHint=false.

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 padding. The action is stated first and the privacy/retention caveat follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and data handling but leaves real gaps: whether re-reporting overwrites an earlier outcome, whether funder_slug must match an existing funder, and any auth requirements. Adequate but not 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 description coverage is 75% and the outcome enum values are already fully explained in the schema, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the undocumented funder_slug unclarified; baseline 3 applies.

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: reporting how a funder application went, with a named consumer ('All Too Human'). It is clearly distinguishable from the funder-search siblings, though it does not explicitly point to any as an alternative.

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 never says when to call this versus the other tools, nor any precondition (e.g. that the funder must already exist or that this follows a prior application). It relies entirely on the title to imply context.

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