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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value on top by clarifying this is self-report only, that it has no payment side effects, and that identical replay is safe. It does not say whether reporting changes future routing or is visible to others.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites and safety constraints. No 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?

No output schema exists and the description never says what happens after a report (acknowledgement, effect on the run, visibility). For a simple two-param tool with annotations covering safety it is close to adequate, but the enum semantics and post-report behavior are missing.

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% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden. It adds only that run_id is 'private', and gives no meaning for the outcome enum values — 'unverifiable' in particular is left undefined.

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 whether a completed run helped the caller. It is clearly distinguishable in substance from siblings like leave_feedback and invoke_product, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

Implies the precondition (a completed run with its private run_id) and gives negative guidance that it does not trigger, prove or reverse a payment, but never states when to prefer this over leave_feedback or what state the run must be in.

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