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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is known. The description adds context annotations don't carry: it requires an API key and is meant to be invoked per-task from an agent or proxy. It stops short of describing duplicate-handling or limits, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then integration point, then the promote-to-replay payoff. No redundant restatement of the tool name; the API-key prerequisite is a compact trailing note.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, invocation context, auth prerequisite, and the follow-up workflow. Safety is largely carried by annotations; only idempotency/duplicate behavior is left implicit, keeping it just short of 5.

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 every parameter including targetId, input, model, and toolCalls is already documented in the schema. The description paraphrases the field set but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Record) and resource (one production interaction / trace) and enumerates the payload (prompt/messages, final answer, tool calls, model). It also names the downstream sibling agentcheck_promote_trace, letting an agent differentiate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('from your agent or from a proxy in front of it after each task') and routes to the follow-on action (promote a good trace with agentcheck_promote_trace to replay nightly). The usage condition and next step are fully spelled out.

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