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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'receipted write-through' (indicating a receipt and immediate persistence), and it clarifies that it cannot change task or stage status. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare 'Log Progress' title, though it does not address permissions or error behavior.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the main action, then adds key constraints and use cases without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (as indicated by has_output_schema=true), the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, constraints, and typical content of entries, making it sufficiently complete for a logging tool with 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage. A full score is not given because it omits details like prerequisites or failure cases, though these are not critical.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds a general overview ('optional evidence references and stage binding') but does not go beyond the schema with additional syntax or format details. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Appends a structured log entry to a task with optional evidence references and stage binding.' It uses a specific verb ('appends') and resource ('structured log entry to a task'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it 'cannot change task or stage status.'

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 provides clear usage context: it records work done, findings, and blockers, and it explicitly excludes status changes ('Cannot change task or stage status (human-only)'). While it does not name alternative tools, the exclusion gives a clear when-not-to-use boundary, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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