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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a PUBLIC write, the profile reference check decides acceptance, and a replay by the observer counts as self-replayed, never reproduced, with independence never established by replay alone. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies important domain 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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core action ('Record a check of a stored observation'), then explains the two modes and key domain rules. Every sentence adds value, though the final sentence about self-replay could be seen as slightly dense for a first-time reader.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, domain-specific rules) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral rules and the two modes. It doesn't explain the exact shape of receipt/replay objects, but the output schema and the high-level mode descriptions provide enough context for an agent to attempt a correct call.

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 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains the semantics of 'receipt' and 'replay' at a high level, but does not detail the structure of these nested objects or the meaning of 'about', 'attractor_trace_id', or 'attractor_knowledge_id' beyond what the schema provides. The description adds some value but leaves gaps for the nested objects.

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 states a specific verb ('Record a check') and resource ('a stored observation'), and distinguishes two modes: receipt (verify/contest) and replay (method witness). It clearly identifies the action and its object, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like verify_reuse or record_observation to differentiate them.

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 explains when to use the tool: to record a check of a stored observation, with explicit modes (receipt vs replay) and the role of the profile reference check. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for check-recording tasks.

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