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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses additional behaviors: 'May incur semantic-resolution cost,' 'Each item uses the current published contract and admission gate,' and 'Inspect each outcome for rejected or partial writes.' These are significant operational traits not captured in annotations.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and then logically adding cost, parameter rules, qualifications, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (one parameter with intricate logic) and that an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, behavioral expectations, parameter semantics, and a pointer to docs. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

While the schema covers the items structure (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantics: 'record_id alone reuses its output; adding structured_output creates a new derived record. Without record_id, supply structured_output and saved_schema_id.' This explains the interplay and required combinations beyond the schema's basic description.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Validate and inject stored or supplied enrichment output into the entity layer and linked syncs.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like enrich_entity and create_database_sync by specifying it operates on enrichment output and injects into syncs. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after fixing a rejected output or an enrich_entity run with database_sync=false.' It also clarifies what qualifies: 'Only enrichment/arbitration records qualify; base records whose fusion is in the same request are skipped.' This gives clear direction and differentiates from alternatives.

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