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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description's 'Write' aligns with that. It adds that the tool returns the line id, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects such as duplicate audit lines on repeated calls or whether the audit line is immutable once written.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loads the action, and includes the most relevant return detail compactly. Every word earns its place.

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 write tool with no parameter descriptions and an output schema, this description is only minimally adequate. It omits valid kind values, the meaning of reference_id, and the relationship to gate_transaction or create_order_intent, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 must compensate for kind, reference_id, and note. It does not explain any of these parameters; the phrase 'for a gate decision or an order intent' hints at possible kind values but never maps them to the schema. Required fields remain opaque.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and a specific resource ('audit line'), and it narrows the scope to 'a gate decision or an order intent.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_order_intent and gate_transaction by resource type, though it does not explicitly name a competing tool.

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 tool is used when an audit line must be written for a gate decision or order intent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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