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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it is triggered by a person's tap in the results view, so the agent understands it records user interaction rather than performing an agent-driven mutation. It does not detail exactly what is persisted or what the view does with the recorded choice, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with no filler. Every clause contributes: the action, the trigger context, and the agent-facing exclusion.

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 three-parameter recording tool with full schema documentation and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the critical missing context: who invokes it and whether an agent should. It does not state where the noted choice goes or what downstream effect it has, but that is a minor gap for this tool's role.

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 the input schema already documents search_id, business, and action, including the action enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 action, 'Note the person's tap on a result's button,' and names the exact context, 'Truvon's results view.' It also clarifies that the results view itself calls this tool, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that agents invoke directly.

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 phrase 'agents never need to' is an explicit exclusion telling the agent not to call this tool under normal operation. This is unusually clear usage guidance for a tool that exists as a UI callback rather than an agent-initiated action.

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