record_research_period_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the append-only nature, idempotent retries for the same access_id, conflict failure, the exact interval semantics [from,to), the requirement for confirm:true, and the absence of side effects like chart access, orders, or file paths.

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 compact and information-dense. Each sentence adds necessary context: the core purpose, required confirmation, key parameter guidance, interval semantics, idempotency behavior, and explicit non-goals. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundant restatements of the tool name.

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?

Despite having 9 required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what this tool does, what side effects it has, what constraints apply, and how it differs from journaling or validation workflows. The mention of idempotency and conflict failures covers the practical outcome expectations, and the explicit non-goals prevent misuse.

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%, so description-level parameter explanation is essential. The description explains series_id stability, data_version as a content hash, confirm:true, the [from,to) interval, purpose, accessed_at, and access_id idempotency. It does not explicitly define research_id, but most critical parameters gain meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific action: 'Record a user-reported research data access in a local append-only journal.' It clearly identifies the resource and behavior, and it is distinct from related siblings like check_research_period_usage or validate_research_protocol because it emphasizes the write/record nature and the journaling behavior.

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 clear usage context: this is for user-reported data access recording, requires confirm:true, and has explicit exclusions such as 'No chart access, orders or file paths.' It also clarifies what the tool is not for ('not preregistration or proof of an unused OOS period'). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer one over another, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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