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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'value hashed only' usefully discloses a privacy behavior, but the description does not state whether this is a write that persists, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens to the recorded data.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a five-parameter mutation tool. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of necessary detail rather than through efficient structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across five parameters, the description is far too thin. It mentions only one behavioral detail (hashing) and omits the semantics of the required fields and the expected effect of recording a rejection.

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 for five undocumented parameters. It only indirectly explains that the 'value' parameter is hashed, while saying nothing about 'tool', 'field', 'constraint', or 'intent_bearing'.

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 verb and resource: recording a validator rejection. However, it does not clarify what a 'rejection' means in this system, how it relates to validation workflows, or how it differs from sibling tools like differ_scan and receipt_query.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which alternative to use. The agent must infer that this is for logging validator failures, but no prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions are stated.

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