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

The description adds real disclosure beyond the annotations: it says only the measure name and the day are recorded, which is meaningful privacy/data-minimization context for an agent deciding what to submit. However, "report" reads like a submission while readOnlyHint=true suggests nothing is written, leaving the side effect ambiguous. It also never explains what happens to the optional reason field.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the data-collection note. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence's phrasing creates more ambiguity than it resolves.

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 two-parameter logging tool with no output schema this is nearly sufficient, but the unexplained reason parameter and the unclear write/read semantics leave gaps an agent must guess at.

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 two parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that measure is the measure name, but never mentions reason at all — and the sentence "Only the measure name and the day are counted" actively implies reason is irrelevant, leaving an agent unable to judge whether to supply it.

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 gives a specific verb and object: report a measure the atlas lacks, with a concrete example ("schools"). That clearly separates it from find_measure and list_measures, which deal with measures that do exist. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by "a measure a user wanted that the atlas lacks" — call this when no existing measure matches. There is no explicit instruction to try find_measure first, and no statement of what happens after the request is logged or whether it is ever actioned.

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