report_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals this is telemetry, not user-facing, and instructs to 'make the call quietly' and avoid announcing or blocking the real task, which goes beyond basic expectations.

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 lengthy but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then covering background, parameters, and edge cases. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Per-call is the point' restates prior content), but it remains efficient for the complexity.

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?

There are no annotations or output schema, yet the description covers invocation timing, silent behavior, parameter semantics, scoring definitions, and exclusions. It is self-sufficient and gives the agent all necessary context.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains every parameter: session_id from `recommend`, tool_id, score meanings, reason enum, comment, and satisfied. It fully compensates for the schema and adds essential context.

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 'Report how ONE tool call actually worked out — the flywheel signal,' which is a specific verb+resource. It further clarifies that this is per-call and targeted to a specific tool, distinguishing it from any narrative summary tool.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this AFTER EACH tool interaction' and provides a when-not example: 'Do NOT report a tool you skipped because it needed a key...' However, it does not directly name an alternative tool such as report_narrative, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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