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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the question is persisted for product improvement (a side effect the agent should know about), and it returns an intentId plus suggested tools that get threaded into later calls. It stops short of auth requirements, idempotency, or exact return shape beyond naming the fields.

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 tight sentences with the most important instruction (call this first) front-loaded, followed by what it stores and what it returns. No filler; every clause carries an instruction the agent must act on.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values — it does name the intentId and suggested tools, and explains how to use intentId downstream. Both the required and optional parameters are covered, leaving only minor gaps about persistence guarantees or error behavior.

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 100%, so the 'question' verbatim requirement and the category override enum list are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces 'exact natural-language question' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline (3).

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/store) and resource (the user's natural-language question), plus its exact position in the workflow ('before any other Zineps tool'). An agent can instantly distinguish it from all 45+ siblings, which are retrieval/action tools rather than a mandatory intake step.

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 when rule ('ALWAYS call this first... before any other Zineps tool') and an explicit downstream rule ('Pass intentId to subsequent tools when possible'). Since the tool is mandatory-first, there are no real alternatives to exclude, so the sequencing guidance is complete.

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