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

The description reveals that findings are immutable, the operation returns a server-generated ID for later use in addressesFindingId, and it rejects stale contract tracking. These behaviors go well beyond the annotations, which only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and then cover constraints, return value, and failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value, key constraint on subjectRefs, and the stale-tracking rejection. It leaves some domain terms intentionally implicit, such as what exactly qualifies as 'stale', but the core invocation guidance is complete enough for correct use.

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. The description adds meaningful constraint detail beyond the schema by specifying that subjectRefs must be goal-scoped refs of kind goal, criterion, or assumption, and by explaining how the returned ID relates to a later parameter, addressing semantics that the schema alone does not 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?

States a specific verb ('Register'), resource ('immutable LeanSolver finding'), and target ('currently tracked goal contract'). The term 'finding' distinguishes this from the sibling goal-record-iteration-certificate, and the mention of tracking context separates it from general goal mutation 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?

Clear context is given: this is for findings against the currently tracked goal contract, and stale contract tracking is explicitly rejected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use relative to sibling tools, but the tracking prerequisite and staleness rejection provide practical usage boundaries.

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