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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a tamper-proof entry, implying immutability, and mentions evidence chain, indicating linkage to evidence IDs. However, it does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or what the entry contains.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is just two sentences. It does not explain most parameters, return values, or side effects, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only contextualizes evidence_request_ids through 'evidence chain' but leaves other parameters (action_taken, jurisdiction, target_asset, decision_type) unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the tool logs agent decisions with an evidence chain and creates a tamper-proof audit entry. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_query and audit_verify, which suggest reading/verifying rather than writing.

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 implies the use case: logging agent decisions with evidence chains. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_query or audit_verify, and no exclusion criteria.

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