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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations: it records a signal, requires a key, and explicitly never changes audit scores, verdict, or stored report. This credibly explains why readOnlyHint is false (it writes a signal) while also clarifying that it is not destructive to the audit itself.

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 compact and front-loaded with the critical prerequisite (NEEDS A KEY), then states the action, the non-effect on the audit, and the identification options. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 evidence objects, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the key prerequisite, the side-effect scope, and how to identify the target finding. It does not explain how the key is supplied to the API or what the response indicates, which is a minor gap for invocation confidence.

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 all parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds the useful rule that findingKey is preferred, with exact dimension+title as the fallback, but this largely restates schema descriptions. No substantial new parameter-level semantics are introduced.

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 uses a specific verb ('Records') with a clear resource ('a specific finding from a prior audit') and explicitly distinguishes the two stances: 'dispute' and 'confirm'. It also separates this tool from audit-scoring tools by stating it is only a SIGNAL for owner triage and never changes the audit's scores, verdict, or stored report.

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 description gives clear context: use this when you want to dispute or confirm a prior finding, and it explicitly says the tool does not alter audit results. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'SIGNAL for owner triage' framing makes the intended use reasonably explicit.

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