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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: only legacy excerpt-budget blockers backed by complete versioned reading are resolved, partial/unsupported material retains gaps, and it explicitly does not confer completion or approval. It omits auth requirements and error/failure modes.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded and each sentence carries information, but phrasing like 'freeze the extraction receipts' and 'legacy excerpt-budget blockers' is dense and forces re-reading. Adequately sized but not maximally economical.

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 3-param idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers when to invoke it, what it resolves and what it does not, and that it returns context/catalog revisions for follow-up calls. The main remaining gap is the undocumented nested revision fields.

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%: projectId and idempotencyKey carry strong inline descriptions, but the nested contextRevision object's outputJobId and payloadHash have no descriptions and the prose only alludes to 'context/catalog revisions'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific operation (freezing extraction receipts into a new analysis context) triggered after paginating sources and selecting quotes, which pins down the verb and resource reasonably well. The metaphor 'extraction receipts' is opaque jargon, and it never names sibling tools directly, but the surrounding workflow language keeps the purpose legible.

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 gives explicit ordering: run after paginating source documents and selecting exact quotes, then submit analysis against the returned revisions and record each page analysis. It also sets a boundary ('never grants analysis completion or human approval'). It stops short of naming the alternative siblings (select_document_quotes, submit_analysis) explicitly.

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