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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: the created record is unapproved/pending user review and must not be treated as verified. It does not disclose the destructive path implied by the factId/revision parameters (overwriting an existing fact).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each one contributes (action, resulting state, agent caution). No filler or restatement of the tool 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the approval-state behavior is captured. But for a 9-parameter, 6-required, destructive write with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unsaid about the correction/overwrite path and the expiry and idempotency inputs.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. 'Sourced' loosely points at sourceNote/sourceUrl and 'correction' hints at factId/revision, but required fields like expiresAt, idempotencyKey, brandId, title and value get no semantic explanation at all.

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+resource ('Propose a sourced business fact or correction') and immediately implies the distinction from the sibling approve_brand_fact by framing the result as pending review. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split from the workflow language.

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 remains unapproved until the user reviews its card' implies this is the entry step of an approval flow, which is useful context for choosing it over approve_brand_fact. However, no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, leaving routing to inference.

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