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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: events are immutable once recorded, organization is derived from the API key, managed mode provides strong auditability, and the scenario hash is computed server-side. It omits failure modes, rate limits, and what a successful response returns.

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 the action, then dense but substantive sentences covering modes, immutability, org derivation, and hashing. Every clause carries information, though the run-on sentences would read better as bullets.

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 20-parameter, zero-required, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the hard parts: signing modes, key management, org scoping, scenario resolution, immutability, and outcome linkage. It leaves the decision_type/label/value semantics and response shape to the schema and inference.

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 75%, and the description resolves the genuinely ambiguous parameters: the managed-vs-client signing path (agent_name vs agent_private_key_b64/signature/public key), why scenario_hash is normally omitted, and the organization_id exclusion. It adds little for the many public_* mirror fields and decision_label/value, which rely on the schema alone.

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: 'Log a signed decision event to the ledger.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the outcome-recording sibling by scoping to the decision event and noting that linked outcomes must match the decision's signing method.

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 clear operating guidance: managed mode is the default, omit signing fields and pass agent_name; client-side signing is for maximum provenance; don't send organization_id; usually omit scenario_hash. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent between log_decision and siblings like log_outcome or list_my_recent_decisions.

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