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

Annotations only declare the mutation/idempotency profile; the description adds real behavior — events are append-only, public events surface on the buyer's tap page, and retired ends the binding (chip stops vouching, cert freed). This is meaningful context beyond the structured hints. It does not contradict destructiveHint=false, since retired changes binding state rather than deleting data.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, then event-specific constraints. Dense but every clause carries information; 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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the behavioral picture is good but several parameters (actor, public, location) remain semantically unexplained in either the schema or the description.

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 coverage is only 14% (just occurred_at), so the description must compensate. It explains 'kind' values and the meaning/requirement of 'note', but leaves 'actor', 'public', and 'location' undocumented, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Append an event to a graded item's chain') and enumerates the exact event kinds, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with the similar-looking sibling record_custody, which keeps it from a full 5.

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 conditional guidance per event kind ('flagged' needs a note, 'retired' ends the binding, a retired item accepts only 'note' events), which tells the agent when each mode applies. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use-this rule.

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