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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Persist' action is consistent with those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the lesson is durable, can guide future research, degrades to audit-only without evidence, and must follow a specific body format. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the evidence requirement, and the audit-only fallback plus body format. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 complex 12-parameter write action with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: when to commit a lesson, what evidence to attach, how to format the body, and what happens without evidence. The schema supplies parameter-level constraints, and the destructiveHint annotation signals irreversibility, so the description does not need to repeat those.

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 adds meaning to key parameters by explaining that evidenceIds should come from the current run's journal and that body requires 'Why' and 'How to apply' lines. However, many parameters such as type, symbol, timeframe, caseStudyId, and mechanismFamily receive no explanatory coverage. With schema description coverage at 58%, the description helps but does not fully compensate for the gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a durable ResearchLesson after evidence supports, falsifies, or narrows a hypothesis.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like recall_research_lessons. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the write-vs-read distinction is clear from the wording.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: use after evidence supports, falsifies, or narrows a hypothesis. It also instructs the agent to include evidenceIds and warns that without current evidence the lesson is saved as an audit-only note. It does not list exclusions or explicit alternatives, but the conditions are sufficient for selection.

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