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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond them by stating the answer is immutable and by signaling optimistic-concurrency semantics via 'exact active publication and question'. It does not say what happens on a stale publication (error vs. rejection), which would complete the picture.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the operation and its immutability/concurrency constraint, the second covers retry behavior. No filler.

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 9-parameter mutation with 44% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and idempotency but omits conflict/stale-publication behavior, permission requirements (the superadmin-only customerId), and the required-when-incorrect correction rule, which lives only in the schema text.

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 44% across 9 parameters. The description adds meaning for idempotencyKey and gestures at expectedPublication/expectedQuestionStateHash, but leaves label enum semantics, correction, customerId, and the target object unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate for partial compensation.

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 verb and resource: records one immutable calibration answer tied to the exact active publication and question. This clearly distinguishes it from get_run_calibration_review, but it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling record_review_decision, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 retry guidance ('reuse the same idempotencyKey when retrying a lost response') is a real usage rule, but there is no when-to-use/when-not framing against alternatives, and the dependency on first calling get_run_calibration_review is only implied by the target field description.

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