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

Annotations already disclose the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description's job is to add context. It does: the required scope 'consulting:approve' and the boundary that approval does not publish or send. It does not describe error behavior when the version or hash mismatches, which is a meaningful gap for a guarded mutation.

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, no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the constraint clauses follow. Every clause carries unique information.

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-required-parameter guarded mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers permissions and scope but leaves the concurrency contract and failure modes unexplained. Adequate as a minimum, but an agent still cannot tell how to satisfy expected_version/expected_content_hash correctly.

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?

The description says nothing about deliverable_id, expected_version, or expected_content_hash, and schema description coverage is 0%. Those three required parameters encode optimistic-concurrency semantics (version plus content hash guard) that the agent cannot infer, and the description does not compensate.

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 (approve), a specific resource (one submitted internal deliverable), and an added effect (record approver evidence). The word 'submitted' scopes it against create_consulting_deliverable/update_consulting_deliverable, and the singular 'one' separates it from batch operations.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires consulting:approve') and an explicit exclusion ('never publishes or sends it'), which tells the agent this is an internal-only approval. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over siblings like approve_consulting_document_revision, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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