report_interaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: identity recording, authentication requirements, the non-destructive nature of the report, storage of context as-is, injection detection, and the mutually_confirmed return logic. This exceeds the minimum needed.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, requirements, options, authentication, returns, example) and every sentence adds value. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful; front-loading the purpose helps quick understanding.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all parameters, authentication, return values, example response, injection warnings, credibility guidance, and scope requirements. No critical information 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists interaction_type and outcome options, describes context fields (amount, task_type, duration_ms, sla_met), notes evidence_hash is SHA-256, and explains access_token sources (AgentAuth or generate_agent_token). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail counterparty_id further.

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 the outcome of an interaction with another agent.' It specifies the verb (report), resource (interaction outcome), and enumerates concrete interaction_type and outcome options, making the function 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: authentication is required, both parties should report for credibility, and the trust.report scope is needed. It also warns about context injection and explains authentication methods. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like confirm_interaction or file_dispute.

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