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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that this is an append-only one-liner into a log that support reads and the customer never sees, and that content must be in English. It does not discuss error behavior or what a repeated log call produces, but the audience/visibility disclosure is real value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the most important constraint (STAFF ONLY) followed by what to write, why, and cadence. Slight redundancy between 'oriiion STAFF ONLY' and 'Support reads this log... the customer never sees it', but nothing is wasted.

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 3-required-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers who may call it, what to write, who consumes it, and how often. It does not indicate what the call returns or what happens on failure, which is the only remaining gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including examples for step and the 'one or two sentences' guidance for detail. The description's 'the step you are on and what you did or found' largely restates those schema descriptions, so 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 concrete verb and resource: 'Write one line in the onboarding's support log', plus the content of that line. The scope (a per-onboarding support log written by staff) cleanly separates it from read-side siblings like get_agent_onboarding and terminal actions like finish_agent_onboarding.

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?

Gives clear context ('Log each step as you go') and a hard access condition ('oriiion STAFF ONLY'). It does not name the complementary read tool (get_agent_onboarding) or state when logging should stop, so an agent gets context but no explicit alternative routing.

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