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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool will not invent circumstances, leaves bracketed placeholders for missing information, requires user certification, and does not submit applications. This is rich, operationally relevant behavioral information beyond the schema.

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 compact yet complete, with each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers constraints, user involvement, boundaries, and quota/caching behavior. There is no redundant or filler text despite the length.

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 tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, what it refuses to do, how the agent should interact with the user, and important operational details. The only omitted details are already covered by the input schema.

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 every parameter already has a detailed description, including 'Facts only', 'Never estimate it', and 'if they have said'. The tool description adds general behavioral constraints like not inventing facts and using placeholders, but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: turning a short factual account into reason text for an extension application. It clearly frames the output as registrar-facing text and distinguishes itself from submission or filing tools by stating it does not submit or file. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable and distinct from siblings.

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 explicit usage boundaries: it must be given facts by the user, it must ask the user rather than inventing, every sentence must be checked, and it does not submit or file accounts. It also explains cost/caching behavior. These are concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions that prevent an agent from misusing the tool.

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