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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true. The description adds real value beyond them: locked offers stay locked until the owner revises, existing entries require expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency), and identical retries leave history unchanged. Only the idempotency point is redundant with annotations.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints. Each sentence carries a rule, though a couple (approval gate, no-invention) overlap in intent.

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 description covers the approval gate, locking, revision, and idempotency well. It is still incomplete for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving most fields undefined.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only expectedRevision (required for existing entries) and indirectly touches status via 'locked'; accountId, title, content, tags, revisionReason, and the LOCKED/DEVELOPING/UNKNOWN/RETIRED enum are left undocumented.

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 ('Save what may be offered at renewal'), which distinguishes it from siblings like record_current_entitlement and record_forbidden_concession. The domain is clear, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('only after the owner approves the exact wording') and a negative constraint ('Do not invent a concession, a discount, or an extra entitlement'). That is clear context for when to use it, but it stops short of naming which sibling to choose instead.

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