report_outcome

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

Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations, the description discloses failure semantics: ineligible sessions fail with outcome_stranger_receipt, duplicate receipts fail closed, optional artifactRef must resolve, and confirmed vs rejected receipts have asymmetric rank consequences.

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?

A single dense paragraph with no filler: it front-loads the purpose, then moves through eligibility, required parameters, behavioral effects, and usage timing. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—5 params, eligibility rules, failure modes, duplicate handling, and rank effects—the description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it. The success response shape is not described, but that is minor for a write-oriented attestation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by tying deliveryRef to the handoff_completed evidence row and explaining that confirmed verdicts dominate standing while rejected verdicts only record, though most per-parameter detail is already present in 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'attest a delivery worked in the external world (or did not).' It clearly positions the tool as the consumer-side receipt after handoff, distinguishing it from sibling tools like handoff, work, and delegate.

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 exactly when to call it ('Use after handoff complete when you consumed the delivery') and who may call it: the session must be the packet acceptor or hold a live Trail/Wake link, and the worker can never receipt its own delivery. It also makes the fail-closed cases explicit, so an agent can decide before invoking.

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