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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: the privacy constraint that only bands and no names/amounts/identifiers may be submitted, the reciprocity gating of lender_stats, and the reporter_key/header convention. However, annotations declare idempotentHint=false, and the description never warns that re-submitting produces a duplicate outcome, nor does it state what is returned after a successful write. That missing non-idempotency warning is the main behavioral gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is added, then the privacy rule, then the incentive, then the key convention. No filler and nothing restated from the schema or annotations.

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 14-parameter write tool with no output schema and thin schema coverage, the description covers the two things an agent could get wrong dangerously (identity leakage in free-text fields, unstable reporter_key). It does not cover return behavior or duplicate-submission risk, which is a modest remaining gap rather than a blocking one.

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 only 29% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does convey the central semantics — all quantitative fields are bands, free-text must not contain identifiers, and reporter_key is a stable per-reporter credential (also accepted as an X-AllClear-Key header). But it says nothing about how program_id and institution relate, which of the many enum fields matter for which decision, or when decline_reason_code applies, leaving most low-coverage params undocumented.

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 ('add one submission outcome to the shared outcome graph') plus the exact shape of what is reported: lender, band-level file characteristics, and decision. The '(bands only)' qualifier and the 'no names, amounts or identifiers' clause make it unambiguously distinct from the read-side siblings like lender_stats and find_lenders.

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 a clear reason to call it — reporting unlocks lender_stats for the cells you report into (give-to-get) — and a repeated-use rule ('pass the same reporter_key each time'). It does not name an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling performs a write so there is little to route against.

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