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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it creates a private, expiring receipt, takes no provider contact, does not alter commercial metrics, and has exact v1 wording linked. It also clarifies that caller attestation is not authority to contact the provider, which prevents misuse.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each adding essential behavioral or constraint information. No fluff or repetition of schema field names beyond what is needed.

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 purpose, constraints, expiry, and non-effects, which is strong. However, with no output schema, it does not state the expected return value or possible error conditions, leaving a small but meaningful gap for an agent invoking the 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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3; the description adds semantic constraints by stating what is not accepted (query, contact data, free-form text, identity) and clarifying the attestation's limited scope. It also links the exact confirmation wording, giving meaning beyond the enum values.

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 verb ('Record') and precisely defines the object: the caller's attestation of principal interest in one controlled next step with an organically returned site. It explicitly contrasts with sibling action tools by stating it does not contact the provider or create an action ticket, making its purpose 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 gives clear context: it is for recording a private Stage 1 demand receipt, with explicit exclusions (no contact, no ticket, no charge, no rank change) and constraints (expires, accepts no query/contact/free-text data). It does not name an alternative tool, but the exclusions tell an agent what this tool is not for and effectively when to use it.

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