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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that all agents on the network are notified, a meaningful broadcast side effect. It does not describe permissions, rate limits, notification persistence, or whether the report can be retracted.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. The example list efficiently scopes the tool without bloating the definition.

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 five-parameter report tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the network-wide notification effect. It leaves sibling differentiation and detailed severity/category semantics to the schema, which is mostly adequate but not fully complete.

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 and both enums. The description names some anomaly types but omits several enum values and adds no additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 detected anomaly') and gives examples that clarify scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling report_protocol_failure, which overlaps with one listed example category.

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?

Provides only implied usage from 'Report a detected anomaly.' It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as report_protocol_failure, get_unresolved_anomalies, or resolve_anomaly.

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