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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds character limits and privacy, but these are also encoded in the schema (min/max). It does not disclose consequences like irreversibility, auth requirements, or what happens to existing data. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds only marginal behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and constraints. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand at a glance.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, and a nested object, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of request_id or agent_key, nor does it describe the submission process or expected response (no output schema). The description leaves key operational details undefined, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 17%, and the description mentions only task_id, structured (as 'private JSON'), and public_note. It does not explain required parameters like request_id or agent_key, nor does it clarify the role of report_text beyond being the report. The description adds a little meaning for some params but fails to compensate for the low schema coverage on the others.

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 clearly states the action: submit a private report with specific character limits and content. It mentions task ID, optional JSON, and public note, and explicitly says 'No public report text,' which hints at a distinction from public reporting tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like speedbot_exchange_funded_task_report or speedbot_exchange_deliver, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related funded-task tools (create, report, deliver, etc.), the description does not specify conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether this is for final submission, updates, or something else. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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