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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags mutation, but the description adds real context beyond it: it mutates MaxMind's model of traffic (not a read of your own data), imposes an input precondition (tag plus at least one identifier), and states the endpoint and HTTP 204 return. It does not discuss reversibility or downstream scoring effects, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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-loads the 'WRITE' signal, then purpose, then preconditions, then API/return details. Every sentence carries distinct information 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, mutation semantics, endpoint, and response code — everything needed to invoke it correctly. The HTTP 204 note substitutes for the absent output schema.

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 per-field meaning is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by surfacing a cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express — 'Requires a tag and at least one identifier (ip_address, maxmind_id, minfraud_id, or transaction_id)' — which is the key invocation rule for this tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('submits fraud feedback to MaxMind', 'Report the real-world outcome of a transaction') and immediately distinguishes itself from the read-oriented siblings (minfraud_score/insights/factors) by declaring 'WRITE ... it is not a read.' An agent can classify this as the only mutation tool in the set without opening any schema.

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 context for use clearly ('Report the real-world outcome of a transaction ... so minFraud can improve future scoring') and implies the lifecycle position (after a scoring call). It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or route to a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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