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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the credit cost (2 credits) and explains the cache mechanism, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, mechanism, and cost without wasted words. Every clause earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple cache store tool with full schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, cost, and relationship to dedupq_check. However, the workflow order (e.g., calling after a cache miss) is only implied, not explicitly stated, which is a minor 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (content, result, task_id, hash_only) already well-described. The description does not add significant meaning beyond mapping 'content' to original task content and 'result' to the stored result. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action: store the task result after execution, with a specific purpose (future cache hits via dedupq_check). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the complementary dedupq_check tool. The verb 'store' combined with the resource 'result' gives unambiguous intent.

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 provides clear context for when to use: after executing a task, to enable future cache hits. It references dedupq_check as the corresponding lookup tool, implying a usage workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives beyond the companion tool.

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