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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the outcome is recorded, that missing baseline_direct_check makes skips counterfactual_unobserved, that benefits and mistakes are measured with equal weight, and that AG credit depends on both correctness and the agent's stated decision basis. It also points to GET /preflight/outcomes for classification rules.

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 contributes: usage conditions, field-value semantics, measurement implications, and a public reference for classification. It is dense but not bloated.

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 tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions, this is largely complete: it defines the important parameter choices orthopedically and provides a pointer to the classification rules. The main gaps are the unmentioned detail and overhead_ms parameters, but an output schema is present and the core semantics are well covered.

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 compensates substantially by defining valid values and meanings for action, observed, baseline_direct_check, and decision_basis, including the credit rule for AG. It does not explain detail or overhead_ms, but those are relatively self-evident from their names and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool's job: after a guild_preflight verdict, report what the agent did and what happened. This distinctly identifies the outcome-recording step, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like guild_preflight or guild_preflight_deep by naming alternatives or exclusions.

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 a clear temporal trigger ('After a guild_preflight verdict') and notes that the call is free, keyless, and optional. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with related preflight tools, but the intended context is fairly unambiguous.

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