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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It fully discloses that the report does not fix the current call, requires answering the user first, and specifies what should/shouldn't be reported (call and response only, omit private data, redact). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 detailed but every sentence carries distinct guidance: scope, order of operations, content rules, exclusions, and redaction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then specifics, with no filler or repetition.

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 reporting tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description covers all the essential behavioral and content requirements: what to report, what to omit, redaction, how to phrase observation, the purpose of expected, and the fallback order. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description additionally clarifies the expected format/length for 'observation' and the purpose of 'expected' as the reproducibility crux for implausible results. It also reinforces the redaction guidance for 'arguments'. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, though the schema already does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb (Report) and resource (an Equibles tool call you actually made) and defines the exact conditions that qualify (failed, timed out, unexpectedly empty, or implausible result). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling data-query tools and from SuggestToolImprovement.

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?

Explicit when-to-use criteria are given (after a call fails or returns implausible data), along with an explicit exclusion list ('surprising-but-plausible data, missing tools, feature requests, or non-Equibles tools'). Also provides sequencing guidance (answer user first, then retry/fallback, then report) and instructs to mention the flag briefly.

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