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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying the consequence: the outcome is aggregated into public per-model stats (failures_30d / outcomes_30d) and that reporting carries 'No refund, no price change'. What remains undisclosed is whether an outcome can be revised or overridden after submission.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then supporting details about provenance and effect. Dense but each clause (request_id source, aggregate visibility, no refund) carries information; minor cleanup possible but 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 simple 3-param, no-output-schema reporting tool, the description covers provenance of the key input and the downstream effect, which is the main thing an agent must know. The unexplained 'reason' parameter and the lack of any note on whether a report can be corrected are the only gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It substantially clarifies request_id by naming its source, and the outcome enum is self-explanatory in the schema, but the optional 'reason' parameter is never mentioned or characterized. That leaves one of three parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('Tell the broker if the answer to a request worked') and names the exact artifact it acts on (a request). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like chat or list_models, which are mentioned only to explain downstream effects.

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 tells the agent where the required request_id comes from ('broker.receipt of every chat answer') and what the submission affects ('Outcomes appear per model in list_models'), which is strong context. It stops short of stating when NOT to report or how failures should be judged, so it is clear rather than exhaustive.

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