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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that recording is free and that only the latest audit feeds the plan (implying prior audits are superseded), but it omits auth requirements, idempotency/overwrite semantics, and error behavior for a write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then unpacks the entry shape; no filler sentences and 'Free.' is a compact, useful aside. Dense but each clause maps to a real schema element.

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 three-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate on what to store but silent on permissions, return behavior, and the non-area parameters, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description does real work: it enumerates the eleven area ids, maps status to green/amber/red, explains detail and fix, and names plan-read facts including the required `framework`. It still leaves the top-level `repo` object, `client`, and other nested repo fields (canPush, branchProtected, etc.) unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('access audit') and details exactly what each entry contains (area id, green/amber/red status, detail, single fix action, plan-read facts). It links to the `plan` sibling by noting the plan is built from the latest audit, but never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent `record_action`.

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?

'Free' and 'the plan is built only from the latest audit' imply the record should be written after an audit and before the plan is generated, giving implied usage. However, it never states when to call it vs alternatives like `record_action` or `verify`, nor any precondition (e.g., run access first).

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