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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds that facts are stored in a specific file path and auto-processed into business-builder files. This provides useful context beyond annotations, but does not fully describe all behavioral traits (e.g., response format, error handling).

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?

Two compact sentences. The first defines purpose and when to use. The second adds storage location and processing info. No wasted words.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and storage details. It lacks mention of return value or idempotency, but for a simple persistence tool this is sufficient.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds little additional meaning beyond the schema; it lists some categories and mentions 'facts' but does not detail parameter syntax or constraints.

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 persists facts from the session to disk, and lists specific use cases like research findings, decisions, confirmations, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on audits, checks, or other operations.

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 explicitly says 'Use during conversation to save research findings...' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the sibling list makes the niche clear.

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