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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the important behavior annotations cannot express: the row is hash-chained to the previous one and cannot be edited or removed after resolution. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, but the immutability disclosure is substantial context.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and closing with the return value, all of which earn their place. The aphorism about remembered wins adds motivating context at the cost of a little length.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state what comes back (row hash and sequence number), and it covers the immutability guarantee and the obligation to stamp every call. Given 80% schema coverage and one required parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only auth and chain-selection semantics are left implicit.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents the five parameters, and the description adds no per-parameter detail such as what 'ca' must be or how 'band' relates to 'rule_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 concrete framing — stamp a verdict before the outcome so it can be counted later — and names the return payload (row hash and sequence number), so the agent knows this is a write of a pre-resolution call record. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it does not fully differentiate itself from groundtruth_scorecard or groundtruth_scoreboard despite hinting at the scorecard concept.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Stamp every call you make, including the ones you are confident about,' with a rationale against survivorship bias. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing.

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