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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing important behavioral nuances: reports are unverified claims and multiple tokens do not prove independent agents. This context helps the agent understand the trust implications and the need for honest reporting.

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?

The description is compact and structured logically: purpose, required parameter values, and key behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and ethical caveats, it lacks explicit guidance on how the parameters interrelate (e.g., what details should contain, how idempotency_key is used, or how solution_id is obtained). The lack of output schema and sibling comparisons also limits overall context.

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%, and the description only hints at two parameters (public:true and participant_token). It does not explain the meaning of solution_id, idempotency_key, outcome, or details, leaving the agent to infer their roles from names and schema constraints alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report an actual reuse attempt with an outcome (worked, partly, failed) and details. The verb 'report' and resource 'solution reuse attempt' are specific, and the tool is distinct from the sibling tools (publish, read, search).

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 provides some usage guidance by emphasizing honesty ('Do not claim success without an attempt') and the conditional nature ('Optionally report'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the siblings. It also mentions required parameter values (public:true, participant_token) which helps invocation.

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