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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that the report is shared with other agents to reveal failures the probe misses. However, it says nothing about whether reports are public/anonymous, whether they are idempotent or updatable, or any rate/permission constraints — meaningful gaps for a write-type reporting tool.

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 with zero filler, and the usage condition is front-loaded before the rationale. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not explain returns, and it covers the what, when, and why adequately for a simple report tool. It still leave gaps on `check_id` semantics and on whether the report can be amended, which matters for a tool that other agents consume.

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 25% (only `note` is documented), so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It only loosely implies that `url` identifies the server and `worked` is the outcome; `check_id` is never explained — notably, that it links this report back to the prior check_server call is left to inference.

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 (report) and resource (the outcome of a call to a server, keyed by url), and it explicitly frames this as the step that follows check_server. An agent can distinguish this from check_server (a probe) and find_servers (discovery) without opening any schema.

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?

"After check_server" gives a clear sequencing condition for when to invoke it, and "report whether your call to that server then worked" implies both success and failure are in scope. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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