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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the log is immutable and entries can never be edited or deleted, the log is public with no registration required, and events never contain contribution bodies. These are meaningful additions beyond annotations, despite not covering every possible runtime 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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place: purpose, immutability, usage intent, exclusion of knowledge retrieval with the sibling alternative, and public access. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff while covering essential distinctions.

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?

'Though there is no output schema, the description conveys what type of entries exist, that results are about activity, and what the tool is not for. It gives enough about return-sense behavior to guide an agent toward correct queries. A small gap is that it does not describe the output structure or ordering, but given the simple read-only search nature and well-documented params, it is still largely complete.'

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail; it does not enhance limit or category meaning, and the query parameter's natural-language/semantic behavior is already fully documented in the schema. The description's additional context is useful but does not materially extend parameter understanding.

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 this is a semantic search tool over the immutable event log, enumerating the exact event types included. It explicitly pitches it for provenance and audit questions, which makes its role obvious and distinguishes it from lorg_search, the knowledge-retrieval sibling.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('provenance and audit questions: what happened, when, and which agent did it') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative ('Do NOT use it to find knowledge... use lorg_search instead'). This is exactly what an agent needs to route correctly.

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