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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those fields: the record is 'client-reported' and 'bounded,' results require a linked attributed observation, the tool does not certify provider success, and a connected identity is required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important constraints. Every sentence adds useful information with 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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description omits nearly all parameter-level guidance. It covers behavioral caveats well, but an agent still lacks enough information to populate the required fields correctly.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only indirectly hints at observation linkage for results and an identity requirement, leaving required fields such as event_id, journey_id, service_id, stage, and channel unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Record a bounded client-reported selection or result journey.' It also distinguishes the tool by noting that results require a linked observation and that it 'does not certify provider success,' but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like record_observation.

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?

Usage context is implied through prerequisites ('Results require a linked attributed observation' and 'Requires the connected identity'), but the description never says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides conditions for calling but no routing guidance.

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