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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect: triggering this tool 'may induce candidate strategies in the engine.' However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as state changes, repeatability, or verification consequences.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words and front-loads the core action. The section references and side-effect note add useful context, though the overall brevity limits the information conveyed.

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 tool with six parameters, a nested result object, and zero parameter documentation, this description is insufficiently complete. Even with an output schema present, an agent cannot infer how to construct result or verifier_result correctly or when this tool should be invoked.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It only refers generically to a 'structured outcome' and does not explain the required experience_id, result, or verifier_result fields, nor the optional success, metrics, and failure_modes fields.

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 verb ('Submit') and a specific resource ('structured outcome of an experience episode'), and adds domain context via section references. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like cognitive.record_experience or cognitive.verify_strategy, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The first sentence implies it is used after an experience episode has produced an outcome, but the selection between submit_outcome and record_experience is left entirely to inference.

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