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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses append-only behavior, no key, and that the author name is self-declared and stored as such. This warns agents that records are unauthenticated and immutable, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveats follow immediately.

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 simple append-only write tool, the description covers purpose, timing, authentication expectations, and immutability. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to explain a return value for this kind of record-keeping action.

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 67%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaning to the 'agent' parameter by noting it is self-declared, but it does not clarify less obvious fields like latency_ms or how to express partial outcomes beyond the enum.

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 clear verb-resource pair: after calling an endpoint, write down what happened. The append-only statement and the contrast with trust_lookup/trust_recent make it obvious this is the write-side sibling.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: after you call an endpoint, to leave a record for the next agent. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names make the read/write split clear.

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