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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding a real state guard: after approval, a different amount or date is refused until an accepted schedule change. It does not explain what the destructive hint actually destroys, nor any auth requirement, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraints following. The 'YYYY-MM-DD' restatement duplicates the schema pattern, a minor redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the mutation semantics plus approval-state guard are covered. The gap is scheduleId's meaning and any indication of the error shape when a call is refused.

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 carries the burden; it clarifies 'whole minor units' for amountMinor and the date format for dueOn, which adds semantic value beyond the pattern. However, scheduleId — a required UUID — is never described, leaving a third of the 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 (record) and resource (deposit amount and date), and implicitly separates itself from siblings by negating the jobs of waive_deposit and mark_deposit_paid. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing rather than read it.

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 two exclusions ('does not waive the deposit and does not mark it paid') effectively tell the agent when NOT to use this tool, and the approval-state constraint tells it when a call will be refused. No alternative tool is named explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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