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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that completion is final and cannot be overwritten, that later claims return 'duplicate' with the recorded result, and that recording is what allows another agent to continue. It also notes the tool is free. These are meaningful behavioral traits not captured by annotations alone.

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 the core purpose and immediate cost signal ('Free'), then explains consequences and finality. It is slightly redundant by stating 'Free' at the start and again at the end, but overall every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists and parameter coverage is 100%, the description supplies all necessary behavioral context: when to call, what happens afterward, how it affects other agents, and finality. No critical operational detail is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds only minimal reinforcement ('action_key you claimed', 'result' of the work) and does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Records'), a clear resource ('the result of work you performed under a claim from once_key_claim'), and distinguishes it from the related once_key_claim tool by explaining the post-claim completion role. This is immediately clear and differentiated.

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 call the tool: 'Always call this after the work succeeds.' It also explains the consequence of not calling it, which guides correct usage. It does not mention the alternative failure path via once_key_release, but the primary usage condition is clear.

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