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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It tells the reader that a signed receipt is returned, but it does not disclose whether an existing correction is overwritten, whether the correction is immutable, what permissions are required, or any other side effects beyond 'stores.' This significant gap makes it less transparent.

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 a single, direct sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core action and the most important constraints, though it omits some broader context. It is concise without being stub-like, which earns a 4.

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 action with three parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It mentions the signed receipt but gives no hint of what that receipt contains or how it could be used (e.g., with receipt_verify). Combined with the weak parameter semantics, an agent would struggle to decide correct values and next steps after invocation.

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% and the description adds only minimal parameter info: 'name and correction required,' 'term optional,' and a maximum of 2000 characters. It does not explain what 'name' vs. 'term' refers to (e.g., which is the glossary entry being corrected), leaving the agent to infer parameter intent.

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-resource combination: 'Stores a correction to the glossary.' That is clear and specific about the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond that general role, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 intended use is vaguely implied: use this when you want to store a correction to a glossary entry. But there is no mention of when not to use it, any prerequisites, or alternative sibling tools that might be more appropriate. It provides only implicit guidance.

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