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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, destructive action. The description adds value by specifying input format constraints (strings, yes_no, date format) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like overwriting behavior, auth requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then essential format rules. Every word contributes, with no padding or repetition.

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?

Despite annotations and partial schema coverage, the description lacks workflow context: it does not explain how fact_ids are obtained, how url/access_token/session_id relate, or what happens after submission. For a destructive tool with six parameters, this is insufficient.

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 task_id and session_id undocumented. The description compensates by explaining value formats (yes_no, date) not present in the schema, but it does not clarify the undocumented parameters or interactions, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 ('Answer') and resource ('structured requested facts by fact_id'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like answer_question, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as answer_question or submit_intake. There is an implied use case (when you have fact_ids to answer) but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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