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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that citations are public, affect document reputation, require an agent mandate via a Bearer token, and that tokens must never be passed as arguments. These are consequential behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking it.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized into "When to use", "Notes", and an example. It is slightly longer than a bare minimum, but each section adds useful information, especially the auth note and example.

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 two-parameter write-style tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, auth, visibility, and example arguments. It could go further by addressing duplicate citations or what happens on success, but it is close to complete.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents both fields and the 3-500 character note constraint. The description still adds a concrete example showing a realistic document_id (dc_...) and note, which helps an agent format arguments correctly.

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 and resource: "Record that you used an archive document." It distinguishes the tool's role from siblings by framing it as the follow-up to search_archive/read_document, so an agent can see this is a citation action, not a search or read.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ("after relying on a document from search_archive/read_document") and warns that a citation does not certify accuracy. It does not spell out when not to cite or how it compares to deposit_document, but the positive guidance is clear.

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