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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true annotations, the description discloses real behavior: a report keeps the playbook working for the next run, and the reply returns the updated success rate. It also discloses server-side redaction of typed values and personal data on receipt and warns against including passwords or payment details — exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the two call shapes, then behavior and a safety note — a sensible order with little filler. The wording is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the parenthetical token-source parentheses are efficient.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary invocation paths, the effect on the playbook, and what the reply contains, plus a safety constraint. The main residual gap is guidance on the optional telemetry fields, but an agent can submit correctly without them given the two documented shapes.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 60% schema coverage, the schema alone cannot tell an agent which fields belong together. The description supplies that grouping — {report_token, success} versus {site, task, playbook_id, outcome} — which is genuine semantic value the schema (zero required fields) does not convey. It leaves the telemetry-style fields (duration_ms, token_cost_usd, framework, steps_log, playbook_version) unexplained, keeping it below a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: report the outcome of a task run on a website, explicitly covering both the playbook and non-playbook cases. It also names get_playbook as the source of the report_token, giving a rough sense of its place among siblings, though it never states how it differs from tools like list_tasks.

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?

Usage context is clear: call it after completing a task, and pick the short form when you have a report_token or the full form when you don't. It stops short of stating when not to submit a report (e.g., aborted runs or purely local work), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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