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

The description substantially extends the annotations by explaining the idempotency condition, version-starting behavior after contract changes, and retention of old certificates as superseded history. The idempotentHint annotation is enriched with concrete semantics rather than merely restated.

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?

Three compact sentences convey the core action, the fingerprint computation, and the versioning behavior without redundancy. The most important facts are front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct 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 one-parameter tool with an idempotency annotation, the description covers the action, its trigger conditions, and the versioning outcome well. The main gap is the unaddressed goalId parameter, and there is no description of the immediate result or return value, but these are less critical given the low complexity and rich behavioral detail.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden for explaining the required 'goalId' parameter, but it never mentions goalId at all. An agent is left to guess that goalId identifies the goal whose contract should be tracked, and no guidance is given on where to obtain it or how it relates to Planner's stored contract.

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 identifies a specific action ('start LeanSolver iteration tracking') on a specific resource ('goal contract currently stored by Planner'). It also references distinctive mechanics—server-side fingerprint computation and versioning—that separate it from sibling tools like goal-record-iteration-certificate or goal-register-iteration-finding.

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 clear usage context: it applies to the current Planner-stored goal contract, and repeated calls without a contract change are idempotent. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the behavior is well-enough scoped for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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