report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Helps Giskard improve', implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible. For a feedback tool, this is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise—four short lines total. It front-loads the purpose, then succinctly defines parameters. No fluff or redundant phrasing. Each sentence earns its place.

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 simple feedback tool, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it does not mention the output (even though an output schema exists per context), nor does it provide any usage notes or prerequisites. It is minimally complete but lacks some context about the return value.

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 input schema has titles but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by clearly explaining each parameter: 'useful: True if the result helped you, False if it didn't' and 'note: optional — what was missing or what worked well'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond 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: 'Report whether the search was useful.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are about retrieving data (invoices, news, web). The explicit verb-resource pair and mention of improving Giskard make the intent unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for providing feedback after a search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Given the simple nature, the implicit guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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