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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantive context beyond that: it starts a 'hash-chained, append-only record of everything that follows' and computes nothing. Append-only is meaningful behavioral disclosure about the durability of the record, though it doesn't mention permissions, whether an open engagement can be revoked, or what identifier the caller receives.

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 action, then the intake contents, then sequencing. Mostly tight, but 'This is how a firm begins: a named client and a scope, before any numbers' is somewhat atmospheric rather than operational.

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 non-destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is created (an engagement file), what is not done (no computation), and what comes next (the agreement). It could still say what handle or state the caller gets back on success, but the core behavior is complete.

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 all six parameters with examples. The description lists five of them (entity, period, programs, sources of truth, who_certifies) but omits 'direction' and adds no format or usage meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Open a revenue-management engagement for a client') and immediately scopes it as intake capture only. Explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'nothing is computed here' and 'the agreement comes next,' separating it from compute_* and compose_agreement/close_agreement tools.

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 clear sequencing guidance: 'This is how a firm begins: a named client and a scope, before any numbers' and 'The agreement comes next.' It doesn't name sibling tools explicitly or state exclusions (e.g., when not to open a new engagement vs. resume one), so it stops short of a 5.

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