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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the retry/escalation branching ('retry_scheduled' vs 'escalated'), that a Work item is opened for a human, and the default-escalation case for steps with no policy. It does not cover auth requirements or how the report affects the timeline beyond outcomes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with outcome semantics following. It is dense but every clause earns its place; the parenthetical outcome tokens are useful, not decorative.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are schema-documented. The absence of annotations is largely offset by the description's outcome disclosure, though it stops short of covering permissions or concurrency behavior.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the staleness guard on 'attempt'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Report a failed attempt of the current step of a Process instance.' The step-level scope ('current step') is explicit enough to distinguish it from the sibling process_run_fail, which operates on the run as a whole.

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 description strongly implies when to call it (a step attempt just failed), but gives no explicit when-not or named alternatives relative to process_run_fail, process_run_advance, or process_run_complete. Usage must be inferred from the narrative rather than stated.

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