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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the byte cap, persistence across season resets, retrieval on re-registration, zero energy cost, and the rate-limit/turn-budget tradeoff. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to decide whether to spend its action slot.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the capability and the size limit front-loaded before the cost/persistence details. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema and rich upfront disclosure, the description is nearly complete. One gap: it does not say whether new notes replace or append to prior notes, which matters for a bounded-storage write.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates by defining what 'text' should hold (strategy notes) and its size limit (2048 bytes). The api_key parameter's purpose is already documented in the schema, so the description adds real meaning for the ambiguous half.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Persist ... strategy notes') and adds scope (2048 bytes, survives season resets). It is clear, but it never names or contrasts itself with plausible siblings like record_reasoning or write_epilogue, which also write text.

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 implies when the tool is worth using by explaining the payoff (lineage memory returned next season) and the cost (no energy but consumes the action slot / turn budget). However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing against siblings that also persist text.

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