log

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

With no annotations, the description notes that entries are 'signed, hash-chained' and mentions PII hiding for payload_hash, but does not cover authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

The description is concise: one introductory sentence and a clear bullet list of parameters with explanations, no extraneous content.

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 tool has 8 parameters (4 required) and no visible output schema, but the description covers purpose and most parameter semantics adequately, though it lacks details on prerequisites or return behavior.

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%, and the description explains 7 of 8 parameters with purpose (e.g., 'tenant_id: customer / organisation identifier'), but omits api_key.

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 clearly states the verb 'Append' and the resource 'signed, hash-chained log entry', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or verify_chain.

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?

No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool compared to siblings such as daily_stats or verify_chain; usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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