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

The description discloses the return structure (should_log, reason, entry_template) and the rule that confined_to_one_session means no entry needed. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it adequately describes the behavior without contradicting any structured data.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, input flags, and output structure. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides necessary details without extraneous text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: input flags, output fields, and the special case for confined_to_one_session. It lacks detailed explanation of each flag's definition but is sufficient for understanding the tool's role.

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. It lists all five parameters as 'whichever apply' but does not define what each condition (e.g., gate_resolved_cross_cutting) means. This adds minimal semantics beyond the parameter names.

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 encodes rules for deciding whether a situation belongs in the Decision Log. It lists the boolean flags and explains the return value, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools which involve gates, plans, or validation.

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 when to use: when you need to evaluate if a decision should be logged. It provides a specific guideline that a decision confined to one session does not need an entry. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare with siblings.

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