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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that the run was 'handed to you by DialogBrain,' but does not explain side effects of reporting, whether it can be called twice safely despite idempotentHint=false, or what happens afterward.

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 that front-load the core purpose before the call trigger. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence's 'Call this when you finish processing it' is slightly generic.

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 four-parameter reporting tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema needed, the description covers what the tool does and when to invoke it. It could be stronger on post-call behavior and non-idempotency implications, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters (success, summary, trace_id, in_workspace) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource/event being reported ('an agent run ... is over'), enumerating the two origin flavors (Claude Code agent task, external agent run). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like agent_handoff or agents_get.

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?

'Call this when you finish processing it' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to task completion. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., what to use if the task failed or was abandoned), but the activation context is unambiguous.

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