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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool clears Agree on each Play, does not run the Play, requires the operator to sit through the list, and is write-tier with possible manager approval. This covers mutation effects, execution behavior, and authorization context well 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 efficiently packs scope, side effects, execution behavior, routing guidance, and approval expectations into a few short sentences. Phrases like 'Operator sits through the list' are jargon but informative. Almost every sentence contributes operational value, though the structure is a bit list-like rather than flowing.

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?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: target scope, company context, side effects, non-execution, and approval requirements. It leaves some domain jargon undefined, but the core call behavior and constraints are clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents companyId and limit fully. The description adds the context that this is company-scoped and batch-oriented, which maps naturally to companyId and limit, but it does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: re-draft every assigned engine-photocopy Play in the company into an English operator contract. It clearly distinguishes this as a portfolio sweep, contrasting with the singular redraft_playbook_contract sibling. The scope is explicit: every assigned Play, not just one.

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 routing note gives a clear condition: use this for clean engine Play slugs across the company. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the batch nature and the sibling redraft_playbook_contract imply the boundary. This is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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