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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing data preservation (nothing retyped, publication date copied into notes), type derivation rules, idempotency (replaying finds the same line), and non-destructive nature (sheet intact). These behavioral traits are not covered by the existing annotations and are critical for safe use.

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 a single dense paragraph where every sentence contributes meaningful information—usage scenarios, data transformations, reversibility, and user confirmation. There is no redundancy or 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 operation is complex (reverse move, data transformations, idempotency, user confirmation), and the description covers all these aspects thoroughly. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what happens without needing to document return values.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (corroboration_id) with guidance to call list_corroborations. The description adds no further parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Move the page to the surface registry') and explains the specific condition under which it applies (customer has final say). It distinguishes from the reverse sibling tool by naming it explicitly, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides concrete scenarios for use (customer's own profile/listing recorded on wrong side, or source becoming a reliable channel) and warns to confirm with the user first. It also mentions the reverse move as an alternative, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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