Report a successful tool call to the network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well: it discloses that the call is cheap, contains only metadata (service/operation/version/latency), never arguments or results, and follows the same privacy rules. It does not discuss idempotency or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple reporting tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The rationale paragraph, while longer than strictly necessary, earns its place by motivating why success reports are important. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is reported, what is excluded, and privacy expectations. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, though it could have named the failure-report sibling explicitly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the main payload fields (service, operation, version, latency) but adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already documents. The privacy note is behavioral context rather than parameter-level meaning.

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 that a tool call SUCCEEDED.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing that it carries no error data, making it clearly distinct from report_tool_failure and check_tool_failure.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to call it: after a tool call succeeds, and it explains why success reports matter (failure rate denominators). It implies the exclusion of failures via 'carries no error data,' but it does not explicitly name the failure-reporting sibling as the alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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