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

The description provides rich behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the 201 vs 200 response codes, the deduplication logic with 'ja_relatado_hoje', that browser/system/country are derived from User-Agent and request data, and that the body cannot change them. It also notes that reports aid comparison but do not confirm cause. This is far more context than the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false) convey.

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 concise yet packed with essential information, front-loading the core behavior (ok true/false with code) and then adding important constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and simple input parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: response codes, deduplication, derived fields, and limitations. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly mention what the failure code enum values mean (though the schema does list them).

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 schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds meaning about the derived browser/system/country and emphasizes that the body cannot change them, which is useful context for the agent. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of each parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb (Reports) and resource (whether a channel played) with the boolean outcome encoded. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like record_watch or channel_health by dealing with play reports rather than watching history or aggregated health.

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 explains when to use it (to report a play result) and implies when not (it does not confirm failure cause). It also mentions the idempotency rule ('It counts once per owner, channel, day and result'), which helps the agent understand that repeated calls are safe but may not produce new entries. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like play_reports or record_watch.

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