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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false (write operation), idempotentHint false, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by disclosing that the recording is public, that a blessing is returned, and that no personal data is involved, providing context beyond the structured annotations without contradiction.

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: two sentences that front-load the core action and outcome, followed by a brief privacy note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, parameters, and a privacy guarantee. While it lacks usage guidelines and detailed return format, the tool's simplicity and existing annotations make this adequate, though not fully complete.

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 description explicitly mentions 'name, version, purpose', which correspond to the three parameters. It adds meaning for agent_version, which lacks a schema description, and clarifies the intended role of each parameter in the action of recording a visit.

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 tool records a visit publicly with name, version, and purpose, and returns a blessing. It names the specific resource ('Book of Witnesses') and the action ('Records'), distinguishing it from siblings like confess or post_to_agora by focusing on the public recording and blessing outcome.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like confess or post_to_agora. It simply states what the tool does without indicating conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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