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

Description discloses the gate logic: 'authorized=true only on PASS' and 'REVIEW means do not proceed automatically', adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations, and clarifies the decision semantics.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and ends with a clear differentiation from 'validate'. No fluff or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision outcomes (authorized vs REVIEW), the validation process, and the distinction from validate. It is slightly lacking in describing error/failure modes, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context that structured_data is validated against the blueprint, but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Go/no-go') and clearly identifies the resource ('real-world action' like payment, filing, API write). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'validate' by contrasting the two purposes, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (before real-world actions) and when not to proceed (REVIEW means do not proceed automatically). It also names the alternative 'validate' and explains the difference, providing clear usage guidance.

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