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

Annotations already state idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reaffirms 'Idempotent.' More valuably, it adds a clear side-effect boundary: 'This records agreement only — it does not create a security, change a cap table, or move money.' This helps agents avoid assuming it has financial or cap-table consequences.

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 just three sentences: purpose, idempotence, and behavioral scope. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or irrelevant detail. Every sentence contributes to correct understanding or invocation.

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-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it says what the tool records, what it does not do, and what idempotence means. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit preconditions or usage guidance, but that is not essential for a simple one-parameter recording action.

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?

The only parameter, formationId, has 100% schema description coverage as a 'UUID value wrapper,' so the description does not need to restate it. The phrase 'as shown on their formation' loosely ties the parameter to the formation context, but adds nothing semantically beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and object: 'Record that the founder confirms the starter investment terms their accelerator offered, as shown on their formation.' It also distinguishes itself from adjacent operations by explicitly excluding security creation, cap table changes, and money movement, which separates it from cap_table_* and payment-related siblings.

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 intended trigger is implied: use when a founder confirms their offered starter investment terms. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, does not mention alternative tools, and does not state preconditions such as whether an outstanding offer must exist.

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