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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context: authority is scoped and expiring, and payment alone does not establish authority. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the relationship to revoke_authority.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caution about payment is a meaningful standalone addition. Every 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?

This is a mutating tool with one undocumented free-form body parameter and no output schema. The description is too brief to support correct invocation: it lacks body structure, expected behavior, prerequisites, and any indication of what the response contains.

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% and the single 'body' parameter is an opaque nested object with additionalProperties true. The description hints at relevant concepts (scope, expiration, authority, appointment) but gives no field names, structure, or required/optional semantics, so an agent cannot reliably construct the body.

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 ('Record') and names the resource: 'scoped, expiring copyright authority and appointment.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling revoke_authority and from rights-holder creation tools, though it doesn't explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 implies this tool is for recording authority that is scoped and expiring, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like revoke_authority, create_rights_holder, or enroll_agent. The context is inferable but not stated.

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