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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a 'wall' is recorded when the event is runtime-sourced, but never explains what a wall is, what happens otherwise, or whether recording has side effects, persistence, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. Its terseness reflects under-specification rather than poor conciseness.

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 tool with a required nested object, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps. It does not explain the event shape, the meaning of 'wall,' or how this operation relates to sibling tools.

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 0% for the single required 'event' parameter, which is an undocumented nested object. The description adds that the event is a runtime tool result and that runtime-sourced status determines wall recording, but it does not describe the event's expected fields or structure.

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 first clause states a clear verb and resource: 'Record a runtime tool result.' It does not differentiate from siblings such as score_action or query_verdict, and the undefined term 'wall' adds ambiguity, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the hold, verdict, or scoring siblings. The runtime-sourced condition is a behavioral rule, not usage guidance.

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