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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior; the description adds concrete effects: preserves history, marks affected answers for fresh review, and blocks affected exports via current-proof checks. This goes beyond the raw annotations, though it does not detail all side effects or the exact state of the claim after retirement.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each clause carries distinct information: exact version, reviewer rights, history preservation, answer re-review, export blocking, and the replacement constraint. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers key behavioral outcomes but leaves gaps: it does not explain the return value (no output schema exists), the relationship between claimVersionId and revision, or what 'current-proof checks' means. Given the tool's destructive nature and the lack of an output schema, more clarity on expected response and parameter roles would improve completeness.

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 40% (projectId and idempotencyKey have descriptions). The tool description does not explain the meaning of claimVersionId, revision, or reason beyond what the schema provides. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter-specific detail, leaving the agent to infer relationships.

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: 'Retire the exact claim version with reviewer rights' – a specific verb and resource. It also mentions preserving history and marking answers for review, distinguishing it from proposal/approval tools and the library-entry retirement sibling. The scope is unambiguous.

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 usage context (destructive retirement) and notes that replacement requires a separately proposed and approved version, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like helvabase_read_business_claim or helvabase_request_business_claim_approval. No clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance is given beyond the replacement note.

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