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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description goes far beyond, disclosing side effects (state transition to in_transit), refusal/ignore behavior with counting (>500 readings, future readings, duplicates), acceptance windows, and the per-logger judging model. This is exactly the behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence conveys distinct rules (limits, transitions, windows, return shape). It is a dense single paragraph, which is information-efficient though the middle sentences are heavily packed.

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 complex ingest tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (assessment, worst logger, temp.by_source, unobserved minutes), the side effects, and the validation rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it compensates well by mapping the reading fields (position, temp, humidity, shock, tilt, light, battery) and stating the 500-item limit on the readings array. It is slightly less explicit about shipment_id's role, keeping it from a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Record sensor readings for a shipment') and enumerates the reading types covered. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling write tools like record_custody and record_provenance by naming its own domain (sensor telemetry).

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?

It gives strong conditional context: a `planned` shipment transitions to `in_transit` on first reading, post-`delivered` loggers are accepted only within the journey window, and cancelled shipments accept none. It doesn't name an alternative sibling or an explicit 'use X instead' condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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