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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real privacy context by listing data that is not captured (guesses, answer, location, account identifier), but it does not explain that repeated calls create separate event records or what the write actually persists.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The ownership and 'never by the model' constraint are front-loaded, followed by the anonymity guarantee.

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 telemetry tool that the model is told not to call, the description covers purpose and privacy adequately. However, with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the omission of any parameter guidance leaves a meaningful gap.

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 carry parameter meaning, yet it says nothing about event, tool, link, puzzle_number, conversation_id, or attitude_level. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, and the phrase 'shared or a link was opened' loosely maps to two event values, but that is thin compensation for six undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (record) and resource (card event) and names the owner (the Words card) plus the trigger conditions (a result was shared, a link was opened). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling gameplay tools by saying it is 'never by the model.' Slightly incomplete because a third event type (connector_card_rendered) is not covered by the trigger phrasing.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion: 'Used only by the Words card, never by the model,' which is precisely the routing guidance an agent needs. It does not name the sibling tools as alternatives or describe the UI-side conditions under which the card should invoke it.

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