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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the report is private and visible only to the user and admins, has retention of up to 30 days, and has no governance, eligibility, or reputation effects. It also warns against including credentials. However, it does not describe the exact response or confirmation behavior, nor whether submission is irreversible.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but packed with essential information, front-loading the core purpose ('private self-report about one task') and covering key constraints efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 2 enums, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the main usage rules, constraints on status and reason, and privacy/retention details. Minor gaps like exact return format are not critical since no output schema is provided, and the action is a simple submission.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' semantics (accepted as intention, blocked/declined require reason) and implies 'reason' is needed for blocked/declined. However, it does not elaborate on 'detail,' 'task_key' (though pattern suggests hex), or 'receipt_id' format, leaving those to 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it is a self-report about a task in a retained receipt, with statuses of accepted, blocked, or declined. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on feedback rather than actions like proposing or voting, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid confusion.

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?

It provides context that this is a private self-report and clarifies when each status should be used (accepted as intention, blocked/declined requiring a reason). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its role.

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