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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that re-recording the same regulation+pinpoint overwrites, that assessments never hide search/read results, and that reason is limited to structured codes with no free-text notes. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent needs to invoke the tool safely and understand its side effects.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, verdicts, reason constraint, overwrite behavior, read-result effect, and call timing. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: when to call it, what values are valid, what side effects occur, and what it does not do. It does not describe the return value, but that is less critical for an annotation write operation, and the session handling is already explained in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the reason parameter is 'reason codes only — never free-text notes', tying trial_id to connect(), and explaining that the regulation+pinpoint pair determines overwrite behavior. This goes beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 states a specific action ('Record') on a specific resource ('one structured applicability verdict on a regulation pinpoint') and enumerates the allowed verdict values. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_assessments or lookup_obligations by framing it as the write-side annotation action.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call after the officer states applicability.' It also clarifies the tool's role as annotating rather than hiding search/read results, which helps an agent know when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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