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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description goes beyond that: it discloses cost ('Free') and, more importantly, the retention behavior ('The plan is built only from the latest audit'), which tells the agent that older entries are effectively superseded. It does not state auth requirements or exact overwrite semantics.

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-loads the core action, then enumerates the areas, then closes with retention and cost. The one-word 'Free.' sentence earns its place as a cost signal. The parenthetical area list mildly duplicates the schema enum but is useful at decision time.

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 nested write tool with no output schema, the description covers what to record, the entry shape, retention, and cost. Annotations handle safety. Minor gaps remain around auth and exact replacement behavior, but the definition is adequate to call correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: it maps each entry to status (green/amber/red), detail ('what you saw'), fix ('the one action that turns it green'), and facts, and names concrete fact keys (accountAgeDays, karma, framework). This meaningfully clarifies the nested entry structure beyond the raw schema.

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 ('the access audit found'), and the enumerated area list scopes exactly what gets stored. It is clearly a persistence/write tool, but it does not explicitly name or contrast against the sibling 'access' or 'record_action' tools, so an agent must infer the read-vs-write split.

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?

Implies the trigger condition ('Store what the access audit found') and adds a key usage constraint: the plan reads only the latest audit, so re-recording supersedes prior data. It stops short of explicit when-not or alternative tooling guidance, but the context is clear.

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