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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the consequence of not using it (section held open, application blocked). This is valuable beyond the annotations, though it does not detail response behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the critical consequence. Every word 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?

The description adequately conveys the purpose and business impact, and the output schema covers return values. However, the meaning and optionality of fieldPath are left underspecified, which is important for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the confirmation correctly.

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 only 50%, with fieldPath lacking any semantic description and applicationId only described as a 'UUID value wrapper.' The description does not compensate by explaining what fieldPath represents or how it relates to the extracted value being confirmed.

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 states a specific verb ('records') and resource ('that a human checked a read value'), and the title reinforces the extracted-value scope. It clearly separates this confirmation action from extraction and banking-application tools like banking_extract_document_fields.

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?

It explains when to call the tool: after a human checks a read value, particularly for low-confidence extractions that would otherwise block submission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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