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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, which the description is consistent with. Beyond that it discloses genuinely useful traits: fixed fields with no open text, that reports aggregate into server ratings and confirmed live incident alerts visible to all agents, and that the call is free. It stops short of covering authentication, data handling, or what an error response looks like.

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?

Roughly five sentences, each doing work: trigger, field constraint, downstream consequence, alternate invocation path, and cost. The when-to-use condition is front-loaded. It is slightly long for a reporting tool but no sentence is filler.

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 10-parameter write tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers trigger, field shape, downstream effect, alternate usage, and cost. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, error/duplicate-report behavior) are minor given the rich schema and annotations.

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 100% with detailed per-field descriptions and two enums, so the schema already carries the load (baseline 3). The description adds framing value by grouping the fields semantically (outcome, failure reason, latency, description match, unrequested behavior) and by stating the constraint that only fixed fields, no free text, are accepted.

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 names a specific verb and resource: report how a call to an MCP server went, including the exact dimensions to report (worked, why not, latency, description match, surprises). It is clearly a post-call feedback tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like report_problem or my_server_report, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Use this after calling a tool on an MCP server (especially one 7Maps pointed you to)" gives a clear trigger condition, and it names an alternative path (passing the same fields as last_trip on a paid 7Maps call). What is missing is any explicit exclusion telling the agent when to prefer report_problem or my_server_report instead.

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