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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavior: the engine logs undetermined matters as OPEN ITEMS rather than guessing, records the result on the engagement file, and requires principal sign-off before workpapers are delivered. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 the main action and scope, then adds only the necessary behavioral caveats about open items and sign-off. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 complex ASC 606 computation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, scope, open-item handling, recording, and sign-off. It is largely complete, though it does not describe what the caller receives back from the computation beyond the fact that the result is recorded.

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%, so the schema already documents engagement_id, transaction_price_usd, and all item fields including SSP method and separately_usable. The description reinforces the key inputs but does not add much parameter-level meaning 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 verb and resource: running the ASC 606 five-step recognition for a general revenue contract. It identifies the exact steps handled (Step 2 obligations, Step 4 allocation, Step 5 timing), which distinguishes it from siblings such as compute_lease, compute_commission, and compute_close.

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 clearly scopes use to a 'general revenue contract' and says what inputs to provide: transaction price and promised items with SSPs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the general-contract phrasing gives enough context for selection.

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