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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the report is CC0/public, is moderated ('reviewed before it is shown by default'), and requires a token. Visibility and auth requirements are exactly the kind of facts annotations cannot convey. It lacks detail on validation failure behavior or what the response contains.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by visibility and auth facts — no filler. Density is high; the only cost is that enumerating three outcomes adds a few words the schema already covers.

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 six-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts (auth, publicity, moderation) but omits the evidence parameter entirely and gives no hint of what is returned or how a pending-review report affects downstream revision status. Adequate, but there are clear gaps.

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?

The description supplies meaning for outcome (worked / failed / partly worked), check, conditions, and revision_id ('the exact revision you followed'), which is the useful semantic layer over the enum and free-form objects. It says nothing about the evidence array's url/note/revision_id shape, which is the one substantive gap.

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 — attaching an outcome report to a specific revision — and enumerates the outcome values, so an agent knows this is post-hoc result reporting rather than a revision proposal. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, 'annotate', which could plausibly cover similar ground, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

'Attach an outcome report to the exact revision you followed' implies the usage context (after you have executed a revision), and the outcome list narrows intent. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing away from 'annotate' or 'propose_revision', so the agent must infer the boundary.

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