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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses the Bearer-token auth requirement, enforced document_id ownership, a ToolError on non-verbatim disclosure, and wholesale rejection with 'nothing partial is stored'. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs to know before invoking.

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?

Front-loads purpose and workflow position before the precondition and validation details, and every sentence earns its place. It is slightly long, but no clause is redundant given the low schema coverage.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained; what remains — auth, ownership enforcement, precondition, per-item validation, atomicity — is fully covered. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the findings array is an opaque object, so the description carries the full burden — and does so: disclosure must be REQUIRED_DISCLOSURE verbatim, each finding needs a non-empty quote/explanation, a problem in {contradicted, misleading}, and a non-empty sources list. This is more than the schema conveys.

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 and resource ('Stores your agent's findings as a real Storskarvia Check') and situates it as step 3 of a bring-your-own-agent fact-check. This clearly separates it from the read-oriented sibling get_findings and from prepare_factcheck.

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 'Step 3 of a bring-your-own-agent fact-check' framing tells the agent when in the workflow to call it, and it names prepare_factcheck-adjacent context implicitly. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, keeping it 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.