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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds value by disclosing the tool's write behavior (signed hash-chained record), authentication requirement ('Requires a Kamy API key'), and the return format details. However, it doesn't explicitly state if the tool is idempotent or how errors are handled.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first defines the core action, second gives usage context, third explains key parameters and return value, fourth states authentication. No filler or repetition.

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 an 8-parameter, 2-required tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to use it (key parameters), what it returns, and its authentication needs. The return format is described sufficiently without an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for run_id (using across records) and parent_sha256 (to link explicit chain), but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema descriptions for other parameters. The enum for status is already clear in 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('tool_call -> tool_result pair to a tamper-evident ledger'), clearly distinguishing the tool from its siblings. It explicitly states the tool is for recording signed pairs after consequential tool invocations, which is unique among sibling tools like ask_kamy or trace_record.

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 explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Call it after any consequential tool invocation — a payment, an outbound email, a write into a customer system'. It also provides a clear when-not-to-call hint by implication (only for consequential actions) and references a sibling, get_provenance_chain, for reading results back.

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