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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it explains that a succeeded result proves the domain event committed even if the MCP receipt was lost, and that Unknown is not proof of failure. It also includes a security note about treating CRM field values as untrusted data. These go beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: the first paragraph states the core function and result interpretation, the second is a short security warning. Every sentence contributes value, and the key information is 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description explains possible outcomes ('succeeded' vs 'Unknown') and advises on next steps. It also covers the security consideration. For an agent to call this tool correctly, it has all necessary information: purpose, interpretation, and a caveat.

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 20%, so the description should compensate. It mentions idempotencyKey and action explicitly, but does not explain objectType or id beyond what the schema already provides. While these parameters are relatively self-explanatory given the enums and format, the low coverage means the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking whether a lifecycle action (close, reopen, transition, or correction) committed, using the original idempotencyKey and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform these actions (e.g., close_record, reopen_record) by focusing on status verification. The phrase 'uncertain' also clarifies the intended scenario.

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 description implies when to use this tool—when uncertain about whether an action committed—and provides guidance on interpreting results ('Unknown is not proof the action failed; inspect current state'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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