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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (bearer token), the 3500-character serialisation cap on `result`, and the overflow strategy (write the long form to the deliver_to file and submit a summary). Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile, so this added operational context is the right kind of contribution; it does not cover failure or retry behavior.

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?

Three tight clauses with the connector scope and auth requirement front-loaded before the behavioral constraint on `result`. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraints appear first.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two things an agent could not infer: auth and the result size/overflow rule. The dangling deliver_to reference leaves a gap about where the overflow file actually comes from.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents task_id and note; the description adds real meaning for `result` by specifying it must be a JSON object matching the task's output_format and bounded at 3500 characters. The reference to 'the file named by deliver_to' names a parameter that does not exist in the schema, which weakens an otherwise useful elaboration.

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 verb+resource ('Records the result of a task') and immediately scopes it to the referencesource Muse connector, naming the sibling next_task_for_muse that produces the input. An agent can distinguish it from get_record/search_records/verify_quote without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly states the precondition (a task fetched with next_task_for_muse) and the environment constraint (connector-only, bearer token required), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not, however, state what to do instead when those conditions are unmet, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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