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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations: the checklist is auto-created on first use, which affects agent expectations. Auth and duplicate-handling behavior remain undocumented.

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 action and followed by parameter intent. Tight and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical 'accepted-suggestion' phrasing is slightly informal.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. For a 7-parameter mutation tool at 0% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete but leaves report_id and the source enum unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It documents title (required), category, guidance, critical, and value_impact {min,max}, but omits the required report_id and the source enum (user/rag), leaving two of seven parameters unexplained.

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+resource: adding a checklist item to a report's diligence checklist, and clarifies the item can be custom or from an accepted suggestion. This distinguishes it from add_diligence_citation and add_diligence_comment by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with those add-type siblings.

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?

Usage is implied ('custom or accepted-suggestion item') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like generate_diligence_checklist or get_diligence_suggestions for bulk sourcing. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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