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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key traits — this is a durable, team-visible record written at task completion — which is genuinely useful. It omits whether entries can be edited or deleted, whether calling twice duplicates, what the call returns, and any permission requirements for a mutation with no safety annotations.

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 action and resource, then the trigger. The 'like the reports the team writes manually' analogy earns its place by conveying expected quality without repetition.

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 schema is rich on input formatting and the description covers persistence and timing, but for a write tool with zero annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context is warranted: return value, idempotency, editability, and side effects are all unstated.

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 parameter documentation is already handled by the schema (including the markdown formatting rule for `detail` and the structured `evidence` object). The description restates the three content components but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Write an entry to the site's intervention timeline' — and enumerates the three content components (what you did, outcome, evidence). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like draft_report or record_decision, leaving the agent to infer that 'durable record' means a permanent write rather than a draft.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Call this when you FINISH a task on a site.' That is strong positive guidance. It stops short of exclusions, though — nothing says whether to use this instead of draft_report/send_report, or how it relates to get_worklog.

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