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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing the return payload (canonical record, missing fields, lossy conversions, unmapped passthrough) and the auth model, including the exact 403 behavior for unclaimed sandbox keys. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, so this is additive context an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the return contents, then tacks on the auth constraints in short sentences. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries operational value.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the shape of the result (canonical record, missing fields, lossy, unmapped). Combined with the prerequisite and auth notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the schema already documents plan as “a plan as plan_rosetta_mapping returns it” and vendor_response as the vendor response. The description's “Pass plan and vendor_response” adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (“Turn a vendor's response into the canonical shape”) and names the source of the plan, plan_rosetta_mapping. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like translate_with_rosetta or ingest_with_rosetta, which the agent would have to infer.

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?

Makes the prerequisite explicit: the plan must come from plan_rosetta_mapping, and it states the credential and claimed-workspace requirements including the 403 sandbox refusal. It stops short of saying when to choose this over translate_with_rosetta or ingest_with_rosetta.

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