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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses append-only semantics, hash-bound uniqueness, one-record-per-decision enforcement, and that omitted metrics remain explicitly unknown rather than becoming zero. It does not describe failure behavior for duplicates, but the core side-effect constraints are well covered.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds only necessary constraint information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The output schema covers return value shape, and the description covers the most important behavioral constraints. However, for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, it lacks usage context relative to siblings and leaves the semantics and range of success_score unexplained, so an agent's guidance is incomplete.

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 the description only loosely mentions 'actual cost, latency, and energy' without naming the exact parameters. It does not explain the two required parameters, decision_id and success_score, or the meaning of notes and request_id. The only added parameter value is the optionality/unknown semantics for the metric fields.

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 action ('Attach one observed outcome'), a clear resource ('a Wu Wei decision'), and a cardinality constraint ('one ... outcome is allowed per decision'). This makes the tool's purpose distinguishable from sibling tools that create routes or inspect agents.

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?

The description implies it should be used after a decision has been made and an outcome is observed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus route_task, submit_evaluation, or get_ledger. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative conditions are given.

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