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

Annotations already declare write/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: it discloses the privacy-preserving storage model (SHA-256 of the description, raw description not retained), which matters for an agent deciding whether it is safe to pass a description.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the storage semantics; no filler or repetition. Every sentence carries information.

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 logging tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the essentials. Minor gaps: no output-schema exists and the description does not say what is returned or how duplicate report_id values are handled, though idempotentHint partly addresses the latter.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the enum on 'result' are already documented. The description's 'stores the name... and the result' and the hashing note duplicate what the schema already says for 'description', so it adds little beyond the structured 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Record whether an agent called or ignored a tool'), and the second sentence clarifies exactly what is persisted. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never names or contrasts with the siblings (check_tool, outcome_summary), leaving the agent to infer the division of labor.

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 statement of when to call this versus check_tool or outcome_summary, nor any prerequisites or timing guidance. Usage is only faintly implied by the verb 'Record', which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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