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

Beyond the annotations, the description clarifies that the tool files nothing with any state, charges nothing, and is safe to call even during testing. It also explains the approval-recording nature of the operation, which is important behavioral context for an agent.

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 front-loaded with purpose and safety, and most sentences provide actionable guidance. It is slightly long and repetitive in its emphasis on safety and payment context, but the length is largely justified by the workflow constraints.

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?

Given the sparse annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the key behavioral, workflow, and safety context an agent needs. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, what not to do, and which tool to call next.

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, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds that the same formation_id should be used for the follow-up payment link call, but it does not add substantial semantic detail beyond that.

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 and resource: it records the user's approval of reviewed formation details at the certificate checkpoint. It also makes clear that this is not a filing or payment step, which distinguishes it from related formation actions.

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 gives explicit timing: call once the user has reviewed the details and confirmed they are correct. It also names the immediate follow-up tool, formation_get_payment_link, and warns against starting a new formation or re-running earlier steps.

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