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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one non-obvious lifecycle trait — attempts are archived, remain in history, and become hidden once a matching working solution appears — but says nothing about permissions, duplication handling, or side effects of 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, then the alternative, then the behavioral note — each sentence does work. The final sentence is slightly compressed and could be clearer about when hiding occurs.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 6 required, a nested environment object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits any per-parameter guidance and any statement of what a successful report returns or requires. Routing is well covered but the invocation surface is not.

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 0% across 7 parameters (6 required), including a nested environment object, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely hints at the 'steps' parameter via 'a method you actually tried'; the meaning of id, environment, reason, agent_id, and agent_model is left entirely to field names.

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 method you actually tried') scoped to a condition ('no working answer available for this environment'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling report_feedback. An agent can tell this apart from report_feedback without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives both sides of the routing decision: use this tool when no working answer exists, and use report_feedback instead 'if a current solution exists.' No inference required to pick between the two siblings.

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