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

The description says 'Each call increments its usage count,' which directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=true. An idempotent tool must produce the same effect on repeated calls, but incrementing a counter on every call is explicitly non-idempotent. The otherwise-useful EMA detail (alpha 0.1) cannot rescue a flat contradiction with the structured metadata.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then a compact Args block. The mechanism sentence (EMA, alpha 0.1) is dense but earns its place. Slight redundancy between the Args block and schema titles, but overall tight.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect on usage count and success rate, which is what an agent needs. The only significant gap is that the behavioral claim conflicts with the idempotency annotation rather than resolving it.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: proc_id is identified as the UUID of the used procedure and success is defined as whether the goal was achieved. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could note the default-true behavior of success.

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 and resource: 'Record the outcome of one use of a procedure.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like store_procedure, update_procedure, and match_procedures, which are reads/writes of different shapes. The scope ('one use') is precise.

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 implies the downstream purpose by noting that match_procedures ranks higher success rates first, which hints at when recording matters. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus store_procedure or update_procedure, and no prerequisites are stated.

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