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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: 'Confirming runs the operation' tells the agent this commits the pending action, and the decline path describes the follow-up flow. It does not discuss permissions or idempotency, but the consequence disclosure is valuable given the destructive annotation.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the branching consequences follow immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome of each decision path, and the schema plus annotations carry the rest. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could note the dependency on a prior assistant-generated confirmationId.

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 100%, so confirmationId, decision, and timeZone are already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the confirm/decline dichotomy and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 names a specific action (relaying the user's confirm/decline answer) and the resource (a Confirmation put by the assistant), which is distinct from the sibling capital_company_show_confirmation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

It explains the two branches of use — confirming runs the operation, declining lets the assistant ask what to change — which implies when each decision applies. However it never names an alternative tool (e.g., show_confirmation) or states prerequisites such as needing a confirmationId from a prior assistant message, so guidance remains implicit.

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