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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds real context beyond them: it is one-shot, it throws a guard if the shown count no longer matches, it enqueues exactly one run per record, and every card it files is held for human approval. It also discloses the owner-only authorization requirement, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and consent requirement come first, then the guard condition, then the effects, then the audience. Semicolon-heavy phrasing is slightly run-on, but every clause carries operational information and nothing is padded.

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 one-shot, owner-gated mutation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, refusal behavior, side effects, and authorization. It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema declared that is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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 single parameter is documented, so a baseline 3 would apply. The description goes further by explaining the invariant the value must satisfy, namely that it must equal the reads.records the owner was actually shown from read_the_first_look and is rejected if stale, which is meaning the schema text alone does not convey.

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 act (starting the first look) and then concretely describes the effect: it opens Tommo's job on each record, queues one run, and files cards that wait for a person. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling read_the_first_look, which is the read side of the same domain. The 'first look' framing is domain jargon, so it is clear but not instantly self-explanatory.

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?

Specifies strong preconditions: use it once, only with the owner's consent, and pass the count the owner was shown from read_the_first_look. It also names the refusal conditions (no consent, or the number changed since) and the audience restriction ('For the owner only'). The trigger timing is implied through the read_the_first_look reference rather than spelled out as an explicit when-to-use rule.

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