report_outcome

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It discloses that the report feeds a settlement-reliability flywheel, but doesn't say whether submission is idempotent, whether it mutates counterparty state, or what happens after reporting.

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 short and front-loads the key trigger and purpose. The 'FREE.' prefix is slightly unusual but the rest of the text is economical.

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 reporting tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. However, it leaves uncertainty about submission constraints and return semantics.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description repeats the assessment_id relationship already implied by the schema. It adds no new meaning about outcome values or the optional tx_hash, so the baseline score applies.

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 identifies the action (report whether a counterparty delivered) and the resource (a prior assessment). It doesn't name sibling alternatives, but the 'after you pay' trigger and 'report' framing makes it distinguishable from the assessment and policy tools.

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 states when to use it: after paying a counterparty, and instructs the agent to pass an assessment_id from a prior assessment. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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