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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds cost behavior ('takes no units; only the key's per-minute rate limit applies'), call cardinality, and the fact that it mutates verification state. These are exactly the traits an agent needs beyond the annotation flags, and they are consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and the exclusion come first. The trailing 'Returns the record's new state' is largely redundant given that an output schema exists, which costs it the top mark.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers everything else: when to call, when not to, the alternative, call frequency, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 record_id, lookup_id, env and evidence are already documented in the schema; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds a useful gloss on the `inapplicable` enum member, but says nothing about lookup_id linkage or the env payload, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 and resource ('Report the outcome of applying a workaround you obtained from kb_lookup') and enumerates the three accepted outcomes. It clearly distinguishes itself from kb_report and kb_dispute, which appear as siblings, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('Call it once per record you tried'), an exclusion ('Do not use it for a failure you fixed another way'), and names the alternative to use instead (kb_report). It even clarifies the ambiguous case where the predicted failure never occurred.

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