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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the specific column mutations (stamps last_reviewed_at, advances next_review_date by next_review_months) and a non-obvious side effect (notes are filed as an OBSERVATION note). It omits auth/permission requirements and idempotency behavior, keeping it short of 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?

The operational content is front-loaded in two tight sentences. The trailing NOTE about the removed review_id parameter is historical context that a caller does not strictly need, though it usefully explains why no id parameter exists.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description supplies what is mutated, the default roll-forward window, and the note side effect, while an output schema covers return values. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 compensate: it explains next_review_months (default 12), what notes become (an OBSERVATION note), and effectively client_id as the subject. Only firm_id is left unexplained, so most of the gap is closed.

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 pair ('Record that this client's review is done, and schedule the next one') and names the exact fields affected. It is distinguishable at a glance from the read-side sibling get_client_reviews_due, which queries due reviews rather than completing one.

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 description implies the usage context (after a review has happened) but never states when to use this versus get_client_reviews_due, nor any prerequisite such as first fetching the client. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, so usage is only implied.

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