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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it records proof rather than performing approval, and it enforces strict validation with 'Every receipt value must exactly match Foliora's stored operation.' This tells the agent about a critical acceptance condition beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and context, the second adds a crucial exclusion and validation rule. Both sentences earn their place and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the key non-obvious details: this is a proof-recording write, not an approval, and receipts are validated strictly. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could add a sentence on failure behavior or when to prefer verify_publication.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that expectedHash refers to the 'already-approved canonical hash' and that receipt values must match stored operations. However, it does not explain changeSetId or idempotencyKey semantics beyond their names, leaving the agent partially reliant on inference.

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 identifies the operation: recording proof that every operation in an already-approved canonical hash was applied. It also adds an important boundary with 'This does not approve a change.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling verify_publication tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'already-approved canonical hash' makes clear when this tool is appropriate: after approval and after the customer's agent has applied the operations. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'This does not approve a change.' It does not name alternative tools like verify_publication for checking publication status, so it is not a 5.

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