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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description meaningfully corroborates and extends these: 'Identical retries leave history unchanged' matches idempotency, while locking behavior ('an existing locked proof stays locked until the owner revises it') and the expectedRevision concurrency requirement add real context beyond the structured hints. It still says nothing about permissions/auth or what the recorded content does downstream, so not a 5.

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 critical approval precondition and is generally dense with no filler. However, three consecutive sentences restate the customerName rule ('pass only when approved', 'omit when not approved', 'do not invent a name'), which is mild 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?

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the description handles the policy-heavy semantics (approval, locking, revision). But with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage and 6 undocumented, the definition is incomplete enough that an agent must guess at how title, content, status, and tags should be populated.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it covers only 2 of 8 params (customerName and expectedRevision). The customerName guidance — pass vs omit and the consequence — is genuinely useful, but productId, title, status, content, tags, and revisionReason are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

The description names a specific action on a specific resource ('Save customer proof') and states its governing precondition (owner approval). It does not explain what a 'proof' record actually is — title/content/tags/status imply a knowledge-style entry — and never distinguishes itself from siblings like record_approved_metric or revise_approved_fact, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: pass customerName only when the owner recorded it, omit it otherwise, and use expectedRevision for existing entries. It sets clear when-to-use conditions but names no alternative tool (e.g., which sibling to use for revisions), so it lacks the explicit routing a 5 requires.

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