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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value by noting the token is hashed at rest and distinct from the consultation ID, but it does not disclose the consequences of the non-idempotent flag (e.g. duplicate or re-record behavior) or whether outcomes are mutable after recording.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is more about data handling than invocation guidance.

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 need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a non-idempotent mutation with 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves outcome semantics and repeat-call behavior unaddressed.

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 4 parameters. The description clarifies the origin and security treatment of confirmationToken, but adds nothing for outcome (an enum of four values), notes, or resolvedAt, leaving three of four parameters entirely undocumented.

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 action (closing the Prashna feedback loop, i.e. recording an outcome) tied to a named source tool. It is distinguishable from calculate_prashna and record_consultation_outcome, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the latter sibling.

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?

Implies the prerequisite (a confirmation token returned by calculate_prashna must exist first), which is genuinely useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus record_consultation_outcome or what to do if an outcome is already recorded.

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