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

The description adds concrete behavioral nuance beyond the idempotentHint annotation: running twice updates rather than duplicates, and the applicant's corrections are preserved. This is useful, non-obvious context that the structured annotation alone would not convey.

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 description is two sentences and stays focused: purpose first, then important idempotence detail. The word 'carriable' is awkward and the first sentence echoes the tool name, but the overall structure is tight and front-loaded.

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 single required parameter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers scope, open-application context, and repeated-call semantics. It does not fully clarify what 'carriable' means, but nothing essential prevents an agent from selecting and invoking the tool confidently.

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 100%, so the single applicationId parameter is already fully documented as a UUID value wrapper. The description does not explicitly tie its behavior to applicationId, so no meaningful parameter semantics are added beyond the schema baseline.

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 that the tool moves a company's carriable stakeholders onto an open banking application as beneficial owners, which is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from formation-based hydration or preview-only tools. It relies on the tool name for the 'from cap table' distinction, and 'carriable' remains somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

There is no explicit mention of alternatives like banking_preview_cap_table_hydration or banking_hydrate_from_formation, nor a clear 'when not to use' condition. The phrase 'onto an open application' implies a precondition, but the agent is left to infer workflow ordering.

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