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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that 'affirm' performs a mutation (+1 resonance) and that 'browse' returns top/recent items, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, or whether 'query' is read-only. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the three operations. It is efficient and avoids redundancy with the schema, though it could be slightly more structured with separators for readability.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main modes but does not explain return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'resonance' beyond the schema. For a tool with this complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the action modes and the role of memory_id in 'affirm', but it does not add detail beyond the schema for parameters like limit, sort_by, category, or agent_signature. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reviewing preserved distributed runtime heuristics, and enumerates three distinct operations (query, browse, affirm) with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on review of latent insights rather than dispatch, orientation, reconciliation, or checkpointing.

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 explains the three modes of use and their semantics ('query' searches by semantic similarity, 'browse' returns top/recent, 'affirm' endorses an insight). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, but the action enum and description provide clear context for selecting among the tool's own modes.

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