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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add important constraints: caller must be the current steward, and content must exclude private administration instructions. But it does not state side effects, persistence, overwrite behavior, or failure modes for a mutation-like 'record' operation.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint 'Current steward only' comes first, followed by the action and the exclusion, and every phrase earns its place.

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 write-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not specify the return value, success/failure behavior, whether the record is created or updated, or what 'client_id' should contain. An agent would struggle to fully understand the execution contract from this text alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'summary' by requiring it to be factual public work and not private administration, but it does not explain what 'client_id' refers to or how it identifies the steward or context. One of two required parameters remains semantically undefined.

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 names a specific action ('record') and a specific resource ('factual public work summary'), with a clear scope constraint ('Current steward only') and an explicit content exclusion ('excluding private administration instructions'). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like get_steward_state or publish_finding.

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 gives useful context: only the current steward should use it, and the summary must be public factual work rather than private admin instructions. However, it never explicitly mentions alternative tools or when not to use it, so routing among the many sibling tools is largely left to inference.

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