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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: 'It never blocks anyone,' which tells the agent this call does not gate or interfere with other agents' work.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action and its rationale front-loaded. The closing clause ('saves the next agent the same failed run') earns its place by justifying the call.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the content to supply, which is enough to invoke correctly. It omits the questionId/objectiveId either-or constraint and says nothing about the response, though annotations already carry the safety profile.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents each field's meaning. The description restates the required fields in prose but adds no syntax, format, or vocabulary details beyond them; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('RECORD A DEAD END') and then enumerates the exact payload semantics: what you tried, how far it got, where and why it stopped, and what would change it. This is clearly distinct from list_dead_ends and overturn_dead_end, which the enumerated content makes obvious.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'the moment an approach stops.' That tells the agent when to call it, but no explicit alternative or exclusion is named (e.g., when to overturn instead of record), so it falls short of the when/when-not bar.

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