record_ingest_run

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it's a heartbeat/audit, must be called even if nothing written, returns the backfill cursor, and skipped is for unparseable items. This is thorough and goes beyond a simple operation description.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by the key guidance on skipped and the return value. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, usage, skipping rules, and return value, which is sufficient for an ingestion audit tool. It could mention idempotence or failure behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'skipped' parameter's structure and purpose, but provides no additional meaning for window_start, window_end, emails_seen, or events_written. The names are self-explanatory, but not fully elaborated.

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 tool records an ingestion run (heartbeat and audit) after every pass, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_stock or void_event by focusing on ingestion plumbing.

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?

The description gives explicit timing ('after every ingestion pass, even one that wrote nothing') and guidance for the skipped parameter ('never guess — skip and log'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set makes its unique role clear.

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