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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by explaining that an acknowledgement 'records feedback for review, never completion or a published fix', that stale revision reports are retained as unverified provenance, and by disclosing exactly what Stackcut persists and what it never stores. Retry semantics reinforce the idempotency hint with actionable detail.

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 the reportable conditions before constraints, retry rules and privacy disclosure. The data-retention sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy, but each sentence carries distinct information rather than repeating the schema.

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 write-report tool with no output schema and a low-coverage input schema, the description covers outcome semantics (acknowledgement ≠ fix), retry behavior, and privacy boundaries. It omits any auth/permission requirements and does not clarify whether fields are conditionally required per kind.

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% for 12 parameters, so the description must carry more weight. It does add meaning for a few fields (opaque retry key, current packet routes/step numbers validated, stale packet_revision handling) and restricts free-form input, but it leaves locale, market, channel, service and handoff fields undocumented by either source.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource and enumerates the nine reportable conditions, which aligns cleanly with the `kind` enum. The phrase 'After using guidance' implicitly separates this from report_action_outcome and report_exit_outcome, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops 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?

It states the triggering context ('After using guidance') and gives concrete usage constraints: send only structured fields, never URLs/screenshots/text, and retry with the same opaque key when delivery is uncertain. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer a different reporting tool.

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