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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining meaningful behavior. It adds that the finding is immutable, that subjectRefs are validated as goal-scoped, and that stale contract tracking causes rejection. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clearer model of side effects and failure conditions.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. Each clause earns its place: the immutable nature, the tracked-contract prerequisite, the subjectRefs constraint, the return value, and the stale-rejection behavior are all packed in without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately states the return value and its downstream purpose. It covers prerequisites, parameter constraints, and a failure mode. It does not fully explain the 'goal contract' concept or the exact meaning of 'finding', but for a domain-specific tool this is likely sufficient context for an agent familiar with the system.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by specifying that subjectRefs must be goal-scoped refs of kind goal, criterion, or assumption, and by clarifying that the returned id is the addressesFindingId for later use. This is a genuine supplement to the parameter documentation.

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 (register an immutable LeanSolver finding), the target ('currently tracked goal contract'), and a key constraint on subjectRefs. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like goal-record-iteration-certificate, but the specific 'finding' and 'addressesFindingId' language makes the purpose understandable.

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 establishes clear context: the tool is used while a goal contract is being tracked, and stale tracking is rejected. It also indicates the returned id is meant to be passed later as addressesFindingId, giving downstream guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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