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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, destructive, idempotent operation, so the description only adds the context that it is user-reported and not a submission or certification. It does not explain overwrite behavior or other destructive effects, but it does not contradict 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a useful exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 six-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description leaves key parameter semantics and response behavior undocumented. The negative exclusions are helpful, but the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in all cases.

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 33%, and the description only clarifies 'feedback' as buyer feedback and 'outcome' as a dossier outcome. projectId and idempotencyKey have schema descriptions, but reasonCode and submissionSnapshotId remain unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') with a clear resource ('dossier outcome') and mentions optional buyer feedback. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from submission and approval workflows, which helps differentiate it from 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 negative boundary 'Does not submit a dossier or certify approval' gives some guidance, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reading outcomes or confirming bid decisions. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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