Report a token's outcome

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the call is free and re-reporting the same solve corrects the prior result. The correction behavior is consistent with idempotentHint=true, so there is no contradiction. It still doesn't say what effect reporting has on account state or how outcomes are consumed, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the cost/idempotency note second. Every clause carries useful information and there is no padding.

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 a fully described schema, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description supplies the important extras (free, correction semantics). It is slightly incomplete on when-triggered usage and what happens after reporting, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% and the enum values are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds nothing about the reason/context fields, so it meets only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Tell NoneCap whether the site accepted a solve's token"), which clearly identifies a reporting/mutation operation distinct from the read/list/create siblings. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Use is implied (after a solve, report its outcome) and the description notes idempotent correction behavior, but it never states when to use this versus get_solve/list_solves or any prerequisites (e.g., must the solve be completed first). No exclusions are given.

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