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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: determinism, binding to the original analysis revision, and the requirement for human review. It still omits what artifact is produced or any permission constraints.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every clause contributes, though the second sentence is somewhat dense.

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 nested-payload mutation with no output schema, the description adequately establishes intent, determinism, and the human-review guard, but does not describe the resulting artifact or what happens with the idempotency key on retry beyond what the schema states.

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%, with projectId and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema. The description implies the nested pricing object holds "pasted prices and approved claims," giving marginal extra meaning, but adds no detail for the nested fields or clarifications 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 states a specific verb ("Prefill") and resource ("a review artifact") plus its inputs (current analysis, pasted prices, approved claims), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the many nearby build/prepare/review siblings.

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?

It implies the usage context (a prefill step prior to human review, tied to the original analysis revision), but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool. The agent must infer where this fits in the workflow.

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