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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, non-readonly. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: outcomes are 'immutable evidence' (append-only, no correction path) and they feed calibration of prior Trust Gate decisions, implying real downstream consequence. It doesn't mention auth/validator requirements or whether a duplicate append is rejected.

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 action before the precondition and the rationale. Every clause (append, precondition, immutability, calibration consequence) contributes 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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, timing, and immutability but leaves parameter-level semantics (especially validator_id and evidence_hash) unexplained. Adequate to call correctly but with a clear gap on how to populate the non-obvious fields.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: it never explains the outcome enum values, passport_id format, or the roles of validator_id, evidence_hash, and notes. 'Outcome' and 'Economic Passport' map loosely to two fields, but the other three are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (append) and resource (final observed outcome to an Economic Passport), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like verify_economic_passport or trust_before_action. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer in a given situation, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

'Use only when the transaction result is known' gives a concrete precondition and implicitly excludes premature/best-guess recording. There is no explicit statement of alternatives or what to do if the result is unknown, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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