record_structured_result

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

Discloses only that storing occurs and that the response is an aggregate count by result kind and status. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not state validation behavior, whether data is validated against result_schema, idempotency or replacement semantics, or workflow prerequisites.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a valuable verdict usage pattern and the response shape. No wasted words, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 14 parameters, nested data, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves important call semantics unspecified. It covers the verdict path well but not the general data/workflow/worker field semantics, so an agent cannot confidently construct a fully correct call from the text alone.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It meaningfully explains result_kind, status, and verifies_result_id for the verdict case, but leaves data, workflow_id, confidence, metadata, source_trace_path, and source_execution_id semantically undocumented.

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 action: store schema-bound worker output in a workflow, with explicit use cases (findings, verifier verdicts, coverage notes, final reports). The verdict-specific guidance further clarifies scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as record_fact or record_belief, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explicit use contexts ('Use for findings, verifier verdicts, coverage notes, and final reports') and a concrete verdict recipe with result_kind='verdict', specific statuses, and verifies_result_id. It omits exclusions or named alternatives, but the use-case list plus result_kind enum is enough to guide basic selection.

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