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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and non-idempotent, so this description only needs added context — and it delivers: it discloses that the rule mutates data in Oracle, that the call returns before completion (async), and that the confirmation token lasts ten minutes and is single-use. That is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by side effects, usage trigger, and the confirmation protocol. No filler; the token-lifetime sentence is repeated from the schema but serves the safety-critical confirmation flow.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value (job id) and the async follow-up path via check_job_status. For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with a nested parameters object, the agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 the description largely restates what the schema already documents (confirm, confirmationToken lifetime, job-id return). It adds the preview-then-confirm sequencing relationship between confirm and confirmationToken, which is modest added value over per-field descriptions; baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Launches a business rule (calculation script)') plus the return value ('returns the job id'), which immediately separates it from read-only siblings like list_applications or get_effective_policy. The parenthetical and the 'runs in Oracle' note make the resource 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants a calculation, aggregation or allocation run') and routes the agent to the correct follow-up sibling, check_job_status. Leaves one gap: it says a preview is required before a write but, since no preview sibling exists, the agent must infer that omitting confirm on this same tool produces the preview.

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