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

The description explicitly states 'Nothing is stored: the answer returns the package for the agent to keep,' and discloses that each entry is placed in a Selfie dimension by the KSA classifier or left unresolved and never defaulted. This adds meaningful behavioral context far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

The description is three sentences and mostly free of fluff, with the core scoping front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence slightly restates the 'outside school/work' boundary, but each sentence still carries a distinct idea: what to record, whose statements these are, and that nothing is stored.

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 tool with nested entries, a package object, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what counts as a life experience, classification into a Selfie dimension, no defaulting, no persistence, and returning the package. It does not explain what happens if the package is omitted, but the schema already documents the package and the 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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds that entries are the person's own statements and are classified or left unresolved, but it does not add per-parameter meaning for weight, difficulty, life_period, or elaboration beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Record what a person says they have done outside school and work ... in their evidence package.' It enumerates concrete life-area categories and explicitly separates these from formal education, which distinguishes it from siblings like assemble_my_formal_education and assemble_my_work_and_credentials.

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 trigger condition is implied: use this when a person reports activities outside school and work such as family, clubs, or sports. The phrase 'kept apart from formal education' rules out formal-education use, but no sibling tools are named and no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance is provided.

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