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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the query_id dependency, but says nothing about side effects, idempotency of repeated reports, whether the agent must already be registered, or what the report feeds into (metrics, ranking, billing).

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

This is a 7-parameter write tool with no annotations; an output schema covers return values, but the description omits the effect of the write, validation expectations, and the relationship to register_agent and verify. Not enough for an agent to call it confidently in edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only explains where query_id comes from. The other six fields (agent, success, cost_usd, duration_ms, note, reporter) are left entirely to name inference, including ambiguous ones like reporter and agent.

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: reporting the outcome of a find_agents result. It anchors itself to a named sibling, but never clarifies how it differs from verify or what 'how it went' concretely encompasses beyond the required fields.

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 prerequisite ('Requires the query_id from that call') makes the intended sequence after find_agents clear, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no when-not guidance and no disambiguation from the sibling verify, which an agent could easily confuse with outcome reporting.

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