Record one audited claim

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the validation contract: source quotes are checked against the docs at those lines, evidence quotes against the code, and 'absent' searches are executed server-side. It does not say whether a rejected claim is persisted, whether resubmission replaces a prior claim, or what a successful submission returns, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a mutating call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the validation mechanics, then the failure remedy. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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?

Adequate for a 9-parameter nested-schema tool whose fields are 89% documented: the description covers the one thing the schema cannot, namely that quotes and absence checks are independently verified. It stops short of describing the success response, which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that for 'absent' evidence the agent supplies only a pattern and Elliot performs the search, which is non-obvious from the schema alone.

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 ("Submit one claim with its verdict and evidence") and names the payload triple, so an agent can distinguish it from elliot_record_behavior and elliot_record_review without opening any schema.

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 clear retry guidance once validation fails ("fix the citation and submit again"), which is the main decision point for a per-claim submitter. It does not explicitly route against sibling recording tools, so the alternative-selection half of the guidance is left implicit.

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