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

Annotations declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no server LLM is invoked, internal knowledge/opportunity notes/strategy/audit are excluded from buyer-facing output, and existing source/bid/proof/pack/final-review gates still apply.

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?

Six compact sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint (assembly scope, answerFormat behavior, coverage requirement, exclusion rules, gate persistence, reassembly timing, sibling redirect). Front-loaded with the core action; slightly dense but no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the workflow context, and it does: prerequisites, revision-currency requirement, gate persistence, and what the tool deliberately does not do. Only the revision/idempotency parameter mechanics are left implicit, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool in a chained workflow.

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 only 40% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain answerFormat semantics ('questions' retains the exact form question above each answer) and implies projectId/expectedRevision usage via 'dossier revision', but idempotencyKey and the expectedRevision/expectedDraftRevision structures are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Assemble all mapped buyer-facing text fields into the existing sourced draft workflow') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without a server LLM'). It is clearly a distinct contribution-assembly step rather than a generic build/export tool, though the jargon ('sourced draft workflow', 'mapped') assumes prior context.

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 explicit conditions ('Requires complete section coverage', 'Reassemble after any dossier revision before final review') and an explicit exclusion with a redirect ('does not create or sign original Office/PDF forms; use document-pack tools'). The alternative is named only as a family rather than a specific sibling tool, which keeps it just under a 5.

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