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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that records are append-only and that signed records are verified before acceptance, which are non-obvious and important side-effect/validation traits. It stops short of explaining what happens to unsigned or invalid records, but it still provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the generic act of submitting.

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 short sentences, no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. Every clause adds information: append-only semantics in the first sentence, verification behavior in the second. This is an efficient and well-structured description.

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 the opaque single object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not define the record structure, signature requirements, failure behavior, or return value. An agent could know why to call the tool but not how to construct a valid call.

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?

The schema provides only a parameter name and type ('record' as an object) with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'knowledge record' and the mention of signed records give only a weak hint about the payload shape. An agent still does not know what fields, signing format, or structure the record must have, leaving the most important invocation detail unresolved.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') with a distinct resource ('append-only knowledge record'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_record, list_records, verify_record, and critique_record by being the only obvious write/creation operation. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 behavior is implied: use this tool when you want to add a new record to the knowledge store. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over verify_record or critique_record, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is adequate but relies on inference from the tool name and siblings.

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