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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it explains append-only reversal (originals and reversals both persist for audit), the clawback warning on already-settled postings, the ERP refusal path, and the auth requirement (connected Aurgus account). This is materially more than the annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the dry-run protocol, then prerequisites — a logical order. It is dense and heavy on capitalized emphasis, running longer than necessary, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing exactly what the dry-run returns (posting count, dollar amount, settled warnings) and what applying does. Combined with the ERP refusal and account prerequisite, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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% and both params are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by framing confirm as a safety gate ('call WITHOUT confirm first to DRY-RUN') and by describing what the dry-run reports (posting count, $ reversed, settled/clawback warnings) — value beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retire a WRONG agreement that has already accrued — reverse its postings, then archive it') and explicitly contrasts itself with both plain voiding and superseding. An agent can distinguish this from close_agreement or edit_agreement without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('already accrued', 'WRONG'), when-not ('refuses if posted to ERP — supersede it instead'), and the two-step dry-run-then-confirm protocol. Alternatives and exclusion conditions are both named.

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