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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add real behavior (agent-key gating, refusal/logging, the money-recording exclusion). However it says nothing about whether entries are editable/deletable, whether writes are idempotent, or what a successful write returns — material gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tightly packed sentences, with the audience/authorization constraint and the key exclusion front-loaded. No filler.

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?

Covers authorization and a key scope limit, which is the minimum for a guarded mutation tool, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 75% of parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks what it needs on arguments and result/error behavior.

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 only 25% (only kunci documented). The description restates the jenis enum that the schema already defines and adds nothing about judul vs teks, length/format limits, or whether jenis constrains teks. Minimal compensation for the undocumented majority of parameters.

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 ('Write one journal entry') and enumerates the entry types, plus a hard scope limit ('Cannot record money'). It also implicitly separates itself from the read-only sibling tertau_baca via 'Write', though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

'OCKLU internal: TerTau agent only (needs kunci)' gives a clear prerequisite and audience restriction, and 'Cannot record money' is an explicit when-not. It stops short of naming the sibling that should be used instead for money/transaction records.

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