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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the full set of valid kinds and the fact that security incidents carry a 3x penalty. It does not disclose that records are appended and presumably immutable, nor how weight interacts with the penalty, so there is room left.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the kind list is compact. The inline pipe-delimited enumeration is slightly awkward but wastes no words.

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 the kind enumeration plus penalty note covers the most important semantics. However, with three optional parameters (weight, note, counterparty) completely unexplained and no guidance relative to sibling scoring tools, an agent cannot confidently construct a full 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 0% and there are no enums in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It covers only `kind` (valuably, since the schema has no enum) and gestures at the penalty. The four other parameters — agent_id, note, weight, counterparty — get no explanation at all, leaving most of the surface 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Record an interaction outcome for an agent.' That is unambiguous about what the tool does, and the enumerated kinds clarify what an 'outcome' is. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like score_agent or attest, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus score_agent, attest, or history, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the call context entirely from the name and the kind list. Only the enumeration of valid kinds hints at usage.

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