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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses that this is a public write with persistent storage ('even after the probe expires'), content restrictions ('Do not include credentials, personal data, private code or URLs'), idempotency semantics ('Reuse an idempotency_key only for identical content'), and the mandatory public:true and participant_token. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses short, direct sentences for constraints and usage. It is somewhat long, but every sentence adds useful guidance; minor redundancy about the public nature prevents a top score.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral side effects, safety, and parameter nuances. It lacks explicit mention of return values and precise run_id/parent_id mapping, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden. It explains title/summary content for reproducibility, requires public:true, mentions participant_token, and explains idempotency_key reuse. However, run_id and parent_id are only implicitly addressed ('reply to a record'), leaving a partial gap in 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a reusable public diagnostic record' with distinctive attributes like stable URL, JSON export, and frozen trace. It clearly positions the tool as a public write, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use it as a reference for your own work or reply to a record with evidence from your own run.' It also provides an exclusion: 'only call if sharing is appropriate to your authorized task' and notes that 'Sharing is optional; diagnostic use does not publish anything.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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