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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so mutation is already known. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations — that stored data is not used for training on narration (a privacy/consent guarantee). It still omits duplicate-claimId behavior and whether idempotency applies, given idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, but it is dense and cryptic enough that brevity comes at the cost of comprehension rather than serving it.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a 15-parameter, 8-required mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, the one-sentence description is far too thin to let an agent populate the required fields 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 15 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at claim and consent scope but leaves claimClass, tradition, chartVersion, rulesetVersion, evidence, userSawClaim, outcomeBlinded, and the resolution-window fields entirely unexplained.

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 names a verb ("Stores") and a resource ("one atomic claim and a consent-scoped outcome"), and the title adds "versioned prediction claim and later outcome." However, phrases like "atomic claim" and "descriptive validation without training on narration" are domain jargon that don't clearly distinguish this from the sibling record_prashna_outcome.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling recording/audit tools (record_prashna_outcome, audit_prediction_claim, build_claim_evidence_ledger). The consent-scope concept is mentioned but never explained as a usage precondition.

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