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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it conveys that the operation is a safe review, requires an existing receipt, and forbids specific sensitive content. It does not explain submission permanence, authentication, or response, but the core behavioral constraints are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, all with distinct value, front-loaded with the main purpose. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the key workflow prerequisite and data exclusions, which is helpful. However, with 12 parameters and no output schema, it doesn't describe the expected response or the meaning of several required fields, leaving gaps for an agent that must construct a complete request.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description only clarifies receipt_id and agent_id semantics and defines forbidden content. It leaves the other six required fields (card_id, tool_id, usefulness_score, worked, use_case, public_summary) unexplained by description, relying on self-evident names.

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 specific action, 'Submit a safe usage review tied to an existing Apex verification receipt,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes this submit-oriented tool from the many sibling run/query 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 provides conditional usage guidance for the agent_id field and explicitly warns against including sensitive data. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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