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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond those: a replacement 'stays a draft while the current version remains in force' and 'needs separate human approval', disclosing the approval lifecycle and the non-destructive nature of replacement.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by requirements and lifecycle behavior. No filler, though the lifecycle/replacement detail could be framed more crisply.

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 return/lifecycle expectations itself; it does explain the draft-and-approval flow well. It is adequately complete for a mutation tool with nested objects, lacking only detail on the scope enum and knowledgeAssetId placement.

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 documented in-schema. The description maps required fields to concepts ('owner, validity and explicit reuse scope') and adds the constraint that the evidence version must be 'reviewed', but it never explains the scope variants (dossier / selected_dossiers / workspace) or the replaces object. 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?

States a specific verb (Propose) and resource (business claim) and adds a source constraint ('from a reviewed evidence version, optionally under an existing knowledge asset'). This clearly distinguishes a proposal action from read/retire siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool for comparison.

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 implies when this applies (requires owner, validity, explicit reuse scope; sourced from a reviewed evidence version) but never names the alternative workflows such as request_business_claim_approval, apply_business_claim_approval, or read_business_claim. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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