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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Deterministic' and 'tied to the original analysis revision' clarify idempotency and revision binding, while 'human review remains required' signals a safety check. These traits are not present in the annotations, which only indicate destructive/idempotent hints. The description complements rather than contradicts the annotations.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and quickly covers key characteristics (determinism, revision binding, human review). Every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with a nested pricing object, three required parameters, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to structure the pricing data, what 'approved claims' maps to (likely selectedClaimVersionIds), or when to call this versus related review tools. The annotations provide some safety context but not enough to allow correct invocation without further schema inspection.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions), yet the description does little to clarify the parameters, especially the complex 'pricing' object. It mentions 'pasted prices' which hints at pricingText, but does not explain the structure or required fields. The idempotencyKey is described in the schema but not reinforced. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Prefill a review artifact') and its sources ('from the current analysis, pasted prices and approved claims'). It also adds distinguishing characteristics ('Deterministic and tied to the original analysis revision') that set it apart from vague alternatives. This is specific and unambiguous, effectively differentiating it from the many sibling tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and action alone. The note about human review being required is a behavioral constraint, not a usage guideline.

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