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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the filing is saved even when validation finds problems, that problems are returned in the response, and that figures are in major units. It does not discuss auth requirements or overwrite semantics, so a small gap remains.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then add units and the validation nuance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: create/update semantics, units, and the validation-failure behavior. There is no output schema and no explicit success-response shape, but the statement that problems come back in the response gives enough direction for practical use.

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 83%, so the input schema already documents parameters well. The description adds some reinforcement about units and the id's role, but it does not meaningfully go beyond the schema's rich per-field descriptions.

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 specific verbs ('save' and 'update') and clearly names the resource ('a set of figures to the user's account'). It distinguishes the update path by referencing list_saved_filings as the source of the id, which separates it from sibling tools like delete_filing or sample_accounts.

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?

It clearly explains the create-versus-update usage and points to list_saved_filings for obtaining an existing id. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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