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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: the captured flag distinction, the two meanings of differs_from_prior, the definition of 'last year' as the same month one year earlier, and the meaning of prior_period_found. It also warns about a critical trap ('Warn your user about that second case explicitly') that annotations cannot convey. No contradiction with 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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It then delivers critical rules in a structured, information-dense manner. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the overall length is substantial and could be tightened. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to verbosity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and important nuances. It covers the listed fields, summary counts (changed_total, not_carried_forward_total, differs_from_prior_total), the definition of 'last year', prior_period_found semantics, and finalisation blocking. This is more than adequate for an agent to understand and act on the tool's results.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters (client_id, template_id, period_id, limit, offset). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, but it does reference statement context and prior-period semantics which indirectly relate to period_id. Since schema already does the heavy lifting, a 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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List every Significant Accounting Policy and Other Regulatory Information affirmation for this statement, with the text that will print, whether a template choice is still unresolved, and what was answered LAST YEAR.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like save_accounting_policies or finalise_statement, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives strong contextual guidance on when to use it: 'An unresolved choice blocks finalisation, so work through them with your user before generating the version you intend to finalise.' It also warns about the silent-replacement scenario. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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