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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful workflow context: 'Returns proposals only — nothing is created until a person creates the schedule in the app.' That non-mutating, human-in-the-loop behavior is valuable beyond the annotations, and it also enumerates the fields of each proposal.

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, front-loaded with the core action and example, then the critical 'proposals only' constraint, then the proposal contents. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully summarizes what each proposal contains. Combined with the annotations and schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 100% and there is only one parameter (companyId), which the schema fully documents as a UUID wrapper. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Scan a company's recent posted transactions and suggest accrual schedules', with a concrete example (amortizing a prepaid). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from get_list_schedules and preview_schedule, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 by the scan-and-suggest framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternatives (accounting_preview_schedule, accounting_get_list_schedules) that an agent would need to choose between. It clarifies scope ('recent posted transactions') but not routing.

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