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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so write capability is already known; the description adds genuinely new behavior: coalescing into a single sovereign message, per-kind routing lanes, and the caution that reports are SELF_REPORTED and should be probed before being trusted. That last point is real operational context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with the declared hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the lane identity and trigger conditions, then mode and kind semantics, then the self-reported caveat. It is dense and telegraphic but every clause carries routing or safety information; nothing reads as 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?

This is a complex multi-mode tool with 19 undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the filing/escalation story well but says nothing about how to actually drive inbox mode (pagination via limit/since, thread_id, mark_read) or what any mode returns, so an agent could misfire on the read paths.

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% across 19 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It documents only `mode` (report/inbox/ack/flush/stats) and `kind` (fyi/peer/done/claim/decision/blocked) enumerations; the remaining 17 parameters — limit, since, report_id, thread_id, mark_read, body, force, dry_run, and others — are explained nowhere, leaving read-side invocation guesswork.

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 concrete verb+resource — file or read reports between agents — and scopes it with 'without involving the human', which establishes a distinct lane. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like arif_route or arif_memory, so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'peer lane vs sovereign' framing.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when your work is done', 'when you are blocked by another agent', 'when you need to tell peers a fact') and a routing rule for which kinds escalate to the sovereign. It never names an alternative arif_* tool to use instead, so the when-not-this-tool side is only implied.

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