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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the concrete side effect: the operator sees 'executed' or 'execute_failed' in the inbox next to the original action and decision. It does not discuss retry/idempotency behavior when called twice, which is the only notable 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the workflow consequence, then the always-call rule, then a clean enum breakdown. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 small reporting tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this description supplies everything an agent needs: role in the workflow, mandatory usage, and the semantics of both status values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what each status value means and instructing the agent to put the error in detail on failure, adding meaning beyond the enum list.

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 (report) and resource (the result of an approved action), and the workflow framing ('closes the audit loop') tells the agent exactly what this does. It is unambiguous against siblings like impri_push_action and impri_await_decision.

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?

'Always call this after attempting an approved action, even on failure' gives explicit, actionable timing guidance for a step that is easy to forget. There are no named alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is stated clearly and directly.

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