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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses cost ('free, 0 QYY'), that records are 'auto-scored on write', and that 'real credit only' comes when others verify via verify_claim. It also flags the auth requirement ('Pass qy_token'). It stops short of describing return values or failure modes.

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 compact sentences front-load the trigger and value proposition, then add the scoring/credit mechanics with no filler. The informal 'Hit a wall?' hook is functional rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description supplies the key behavioral context an agent needs: cost, write-time scoring, and the verify_claim dependency for real credit. It is fairly complete, though it says nothing about what a successful write returns or rejection cases.

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 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description only reiterates the qy_token requirement and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Log the pitfall once', making it immediately clear this tool writes a pitfall record. It also names the sibling relationship by pointing to verify_claim as the credit path, though it doesn't exhaustively differentiate from other siblings like query_experience.

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 gives a clear trigger ('Hit a wall?') for when to use the tool and frames the motivation ('so the next agent doesn't repeat it'). It also points to verify_claim as a related tool, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or boundaries against overlapping siblings.

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