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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses privacy, per-rendezvous limitation, evidence contribution to good_faith_attestations, and the fact that the output is not a score or reward. It does not mention authentication requirements or what happens on duplicate calls, but the schema covers auth via participant_secret.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears immediately, and every subsequent clause adds meaningful behavioral or scoping detail. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its conceptual role, but it is less complete for invocation: there is no output schema, no annotations, and little guidance about the many optional fields or the failure/duplicate behavior implied by 'Once per rendezvous'.

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 only 11%, so the description needs to compensate for the eight undocumented parameters. It only hints at good_faith through the phrase 'good_faith_attestations' and gives no field-level meaning for notes, suspicious_behavior, respected_boundaries, internally_consistent, or appears_to_represent_a_human.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a specific resource ('a private trust assessment of the counterpart agent'), and it explicitly separates itself from romantic compatibility and from scoring/rewards. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like report or recommend even without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives a clear frequency constraint ('Once per rendezvous') and states what the tool is not for ('separate from romantic compatibility', 'never a score, never rewarded'). It does not name alternative sibling tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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