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

Annotations cover the write/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the description need not restate those. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the entry is placed on the contact's timeline and can return a relationship impact when health status changes, which is a real side effect not captured by the structured fields. It omits the approval_id/human-approval workflow and any idempotency-retry note.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the triggering situation before the effect. Both sentences carry information, though the return-value sentence slightly overlaps with the output schema that already exists.

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?

Given a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and complete annotations, the description only needs to supply intent and side effects, which it does. A brief note on the approval_id requirement or idempotent retry behavior would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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 documents all seven parameters including approval_id, external_id, and occurred_at. The description adds only loose examples of the 'type' values (email, meeting, call), which is minor value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (log) and resource (interaction) with concrete examples (email sent, meeting held, call made) and the consequence (lands on the contact's timeline). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like calls.create or messages.send, which create similar activity records.

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 trigger condition is explicit: 'When the user tells you about a real-world touchpoint with someone... log it here.' This gives a clear when-to-use context. However, it names no alternatives and no exclusions, so an agent is not told when to prefer calls.create or messages.send instead.

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