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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: physical presence recording and return of continuous egocentric video, timestamps, and a written sequence. It omits important behavioral details such as privacy/consent implications, duration, permissions, cancellation, and what budget_cap or specialist affect.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the action first and the return values second. The examples are useful rather than noisy, though the opening phrase 'Be present and record' is slightly less precise than a direct verb-resource statement.

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 tool has five parameters, three required, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers the return format and gives event examples, but it does not adequately explain required inputs, optional parameters, scheduling, or operational constraints.

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% for all five parameters. The description implicitly gives examples for the 'event' parameter, but it does not explain address, scheduled_at, budget_cap, or specialist, leaving most parameter meaning 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 action, 'be present and record,' and gives concrete event examples plus the returned artifacts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspect_property or technical_survey, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 listed event types imply when the tool is appropriate, such as deliveries, installations, signings, and inventory counts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of siblings like stand_in or verify_location, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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