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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. Beyond that, the description discloses the important second-order behavior: supplying tool_id causes the result to be shared with other agents and to influence future picks, with the scope of sharing ('only id and success') explicitly bounded. That privacy/consequence disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 front-loaded sentences state the action and the one behavioral consequence that matters, followed by a compact example that pins down shape without prose. Nothing is padded, though the example partly restates schema fields.

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 six-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the plan_id linkage, and the shared-data consequence, which is what an agent needs to call it responsibly. It omits whether the call returns anything or how failures are reported, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine value on top: a concrete example showing the key prefix, plan_id, success and steps together, plus the effect of tool_id on cross-agent learning. It does not, however, clarify the relationship between steps and plan_id or what note is for beyond 'What happened'.

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 (log) and resource (task outcome), scoping it to planned tasks that succeeded and the real steps taken. It is distinguishable from log_task_plan by the 'planned task' framing, though it never names the near-duplicate sibling report_outcome, which an agent must also choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'planned task' ties it to log_task_plan and the plan_id field says 'From log_task_plan', so the pairing is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on when to prefer this over report_outcome, which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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