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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious consequences the annotations cannot express: nudges stop for ready/nothing_to_report/skipped and resume for waiting/partial, and the change is written to the Client's history. Those side effects are exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before mutating chase state.

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 core behavior and its nudge side effects are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the usage trigger isolated on its own line. The first sentence is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state space, the nudge consequences, history recording, and when to invoke it. It does not say what happens on an unknown client or what a successful response contains, but the essential calling information is present.

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 67%, so the schema already documents client, quarter, recount, and idempotency_key. The description only restates the status enum and mentions the optional note, adding no new meaning for recount or the idempotency key beyond what the schema supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sets one Client's Chase for a Quarter') and enumerates the exact target states (ready, partial, nothing_to_report, skipped, waiting). Combined with the 'Use this when' clause about records arriving by other routes, it is distinguishable from siblings like start_chase or send_nudges_now without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit 'Use this when:' trigger with two concrete conditions (records arrived another way; a Client should be skipped this Quarter), which is real routing guidance rather than implied usage. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it (e.g. versus start_chase).

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