Label a finding

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

Goes well past annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing consequences: the finding is kept either way, retains its id, and later filings of the same problem still merge into it, while not-a-bug entries are surfaced separately in cards and the status pane. It also bounds export mode (candidates only, never alters the answer key or dedup on its own) and states 'Touches no browser.' That is exactly the non-obvious side-effect context an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Primary action is front-loaded in the first clause and almost every sentence carries load-bearing information about side effects or admissibility. The export behaviour is buried mid-paragraph behind semicolons, making the mode harder to spot than it should be, but nothing is padded.

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?

With annotations and an output schema already present, the description fills the remaining gaps: mutation semantics, persistence of the finding and its id, dedup behaviour, separate surfacing of not-a-bug, export's read-only-for-maintainers scope, and the absence of browser interaction. An agent can call this correctly and predict the result without further information.

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 schema already documents id, export, reason and verdict, including the 'Required unless export' conditional. The description mainly restates those facts (the 300-character limit, the two verdict strings) and adds little syntax or format detail beyond them; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Record the person's own verdict on a finding') and enumerates the two allowed verdict values, so the action is unambiguous. It does not contrast itself with plausibly overlapping siblings such as scout_finding, scout_resolve or scout_verify, so an agent must infer which one records a human verdict versus which drives automated resolution.

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?

Gives an explicit admissibility rule — 'Call it only with what the person said; never label a finding yourself' — which is a real when-to/when-not constraint an agent could otherwise get wrong. It also explains the alternate export mode. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the case where the agent does want to act on a finding itself.

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