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

With only readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false as annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses validation requirements, a server-side derivation ('Planner derives the repeat verdict server-side'), and a side effect (affects the numeric implementation rework rate), with no contradiction to 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?

Four dense sentences are front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by constraints and scope. There is no filler or redundant explanation; each clause earns its place.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus fully covered input schema gives an agent enough to operate in normal and rework cases. Minor gaps remain: 'current tracked contract' is not defined, the relationship to goal-register-iteration-finding is implicit, and return/error behavior is not described.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining rework conditions, the requirement for a separate judged evidence row, and the server-side derivation behavior. These details add operational meaning that the property descriptions alone do not fully convey.

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 states a specific action ('Record one completed LeanSolver iteration') against a clear resource ('the current tracked contract') and then gives domain-specific constraints that separate it from sibling recording/finding tools. The final sentence about only certificates admitted here affecting the rework rate further pins down the tool's unique role.

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 practical use conditions: artifact refs must already exist and be goal-owned, rework iterations require registered finding IDs, and repeatCheckEvidenceId is mandatory. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this tool when X, not when Y,' but the preconditions are clear enough to route an agent.

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