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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description explicitly discloses that the tool 'mutates the durable demand ledger,' that the mutation is additive and non-destructive, and that repeated calls may increase the observed demand signal. It also warns against sending sensitive values, providing useful behavioral and safety context beyond the structured fields.

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 a compact block that front-loads the core purpose and call condition, then adds the behavioral, boundary, and security details. Every sentence carries essential information, with no filler or redundancy; it is easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does, when to call it (after failed search), what side effects it produces (durable ledger, additive, non-destructive, repeated calls count), and what must be avoided (sensitive data). This is enough for an agent to call it correctly in context, even with a nested object parameter and no expected return.

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 100%, so the schema already explains intent, capability, and example_input. The description adds some meaning by framing intent as a missing or unresolved task, and by reinforcing the no-secrets rule for intent and example_input. However, it does not add materially new field-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score fits.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a resource ('capability need that MISSING cannot currently resolve'), and it ties this to the trusted acquisition system's prioritization. It differentiates the tool from siblings by restricting its use to cases where list/search have already failed to find a suitable verified capability, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'only after list/search finds no suitable verified capability.' It also gives a negative condition implicitly (verified capabilities exist, use a search tool instead) and notes the mutation is additive/non-destructive, giving clear context for when this is the right operation.

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