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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the reward mechanics (bounded, time-decaying multiplier, max 1.5x, 14-day half-life) and, critically, the safety ceiling: the boost is ranking-only and cannot override tenant isolation, namespace grants, or privacy filters. Annotations merely say non-readonly/non-destructive/non-idempotent; the description explains the actual effect and its limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and mechanism, then the timing rule and safety constraint. The 'Reward peptide' flourish and parenthetical examples cost a little, but each sentence carries operational content.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return/effect semantics, and it does: it explains exactly what the call changes (a bounded ranking multiplier) and what it cannot change. Timing, safety, and effect are all covered for this 4-param mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so key, fact_id, reason, and weight are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the reason requirement and the outcome-tracing intent but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('reinforce a fact') and immediately distinguishes it from similarity-based siblings by scoping it to facts whose recall led to a confirmed good outcome. The 'recall-on-success' framing makes it unambiguous versus mark_salient or store_fact.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('AFTER the outcome is confirmed') and when not to ('never for a fact that merely seemed relevant'), with a concrete trigger list (fix worked, deploy green, user approved). This is the rare case of genuine when/when-not guidance.

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