Show how well the twin knows a workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds real value by resolving the ambiguity created by the name 'track_record' – the tool only surfaces evidence and recommends, it does not promote or mutate state. It still says nothing about cost, latency, or how much history is scanned.

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 that front-load what the tool returns before the caveat about promotion. The list is telegraphic but dense; nothing is padding, though the compressed noun stack takes a moment to parse.

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, so the description is the only signal about what comes back; it lists the evidence categories and the recommended next step, which is helpful. It nevertheless leaves the stage vocabulary and workflow identifier unexplained for a fairly abstract learning-loop tool.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what a 'workflow' identifier is and what form it takes. It only alludes to 'a workflow' generically and adds no format, naming, or lookup guidance beyond the regex pattern already in the schema.

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 resource (evidence and stage for a workflow) and enumerates the kinds of evidence returned: confirmed learning, corrections, evaluation results, grants, and recommended next step. It partially differentiates from siblings by declaring it only recommends, unlike the promotion/authorise tools, but it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – an agent infers you call this to inspect how well the twin knows a workflow. The closing clause 'it recommends; only the principal promotes' hints that a different tool handles promotion, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given.

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