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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds real behavioral substance: status is re-derived from events rather than trusted from storage, the close is blocked while open items remain, and the tool refuses to report if the hash chain fails re-verification. The refusal-on-tamper behavior is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent must know before calling.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core concept (derived, not stored) before the two modes and the failure case. Every sentence carries information — no restatement of the title or the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: chain steps, what's next, open items, the no-id engagement list plus firm status, and the refusal path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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 the schema already documents the omit-to-list behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by tying the parameter to two distinct result shapes and to the no-id branch that also returns firm status, which the schema only states in compressed form.

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 and resource — report where an engagement stands — and explicitly distinguishes itself from a stored-status read ("derived from the engagement file's real events, not a stored status"). An agent can tell this apart from compute_close, compute_* and report siblings because it is a read-side status derivation, and the two operating modes are spelled out.

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 conditions for both modes: with an engagement id you get chain steps/next/open items, without one you get the client's engagement list plus firm status. That covers when to call it and how to pick the parameter, but it never names a sibling alternative (e.g. compute_close or report) to steer the agent away when a different tool is wanted.

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