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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the server-side fingerprint computation, the condition for starting a new version, and the retention of old certificates as superseded history. This clarifies consequences beyond the structured hints, though it does not address errors or prerequisites in depth.

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 focused sentences with the core action first. The follow-up sentence earns its place by explaining idempotence and versioning, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

The definition covers the main operational context: when a new version begins and what happens to prior certificates, with the only gap being the lack of return-value or error information since no output schema exists. For a one-parameter, state-changing tool this is still largely complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning, but it never mentions goalId, its format, or how it relates to the 'goal contract currently stored by Planner'. The name and schema imply it is the goal identifier, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Explicitly start LeanSolver iteration tracking' for the goal contract held by Planner. This clearly separates it from siblings like goal-record-iteration-certificate and goal-register-iteration-finding, which record artifacts rather than start the tracking lifecycle.

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?

It establishes when to call: at the start of tracking for the currently stored goal contract, and indicates that re-calling after a contract change starts a new version while re-calling without a change is safe. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, so it stops just short of a top score.

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