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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — "System may auto-recover" — telling the agent that filing a report does not guarantee human/agent intervention. It stops short of describing idempotency, required authorization, or what happens 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?

A single compact sentence pair with the core action front-loaded and the qualifying scope immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and six fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential trigger. It is missing what happens to the report (auto-recovery path, escalation), whether calls are idempotent, and how it differs from report_anomaly — gaps that matter for a failure-reporting tool in a crowded sibling set.

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%, with all six parameters documented including the protocol enum values and the recoveryAction enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 protocol failure") and scopes it to failures "when a step in the evidence/escrow/verification pipeline breaks." That is enough to separate it from generic telemetry tools, but it never distinguishes it from the close sibling report_anomaly, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 gives an implied trigger condition (a broken pipeline step), which is more than nothing, but it offers no when-not guidance and no routing between this tool and alternatives like report_anomaly, send_diagnostics, or dispute_verification.

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