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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that FLINT cannot stop a wallet from transacting, that this tool is the 'enforce-or-attest half of the contract', and that an executed_despite_block outcome is recorded as an override and alerts the passport owner. That side-effect disclosure is exactly the behavior an agent needs and is not derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the auth branches and the override consequence. Dense but every clause carries information; only the framing phrase about the 'enforce-or-attest contract' is mildly decorative.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite scan, both authorization routes, and the downstream consequences of an override. It stops short of saying what the tool returns on success or how repeated reports for the same record_id are handled (relevant given idempotentHint).

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 two-token authorization model, the frv_ record_id pattern, and the executed/held/cancelled/executed_despite_block enum are already documented inline. The description restates the same branching logic rather than adding format or edge-case detail, 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 (report) and resource (the outcome of a run_flint_scout scan) and enumerates the four outcome values it accepts. It is immediately distinguishable from its closest sibling, run_flint_scout, which produces the record this tool consumes.

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?

Explicitly sequences the call: 'Use this tool after a run_flint_scout scan.' It then branches the authorization path, naming session_token for an account that owns the passport and caller_binding_token for anonymous callers, so the agent knows which credential to present and when.

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