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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds nuance: 'opening a call you already hold repositions it instead of creating a duplicate'. It also discloses the qualitative requirement. Beyond this, no additional behavioral traits (auth needs, error behavior, side effects) are covered. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two sentences: the first states purpose concisely, the second explains idempotency and a key constraint. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits many important details: what the return value is, error scenarios, authentication expectations (access_token), and the function of tags, category, and URLs. An agent would lack enough information to use this tool confidently.

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 only 30% (3 of 10 parameters documented). The tool description covers the same three parameters (event, lean, rationale) and reinforces their qualitative constraints, but it adds no information about the remaining 7 parameters (e.g., tags, category, story_url). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving critical fields undocumented.

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 specifies the verb 'Record', the resource 'a new call on your book', and the key attributes (event, lean, rationale). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fm_close_position and fm_reposition, which perform different operations.

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 explicitly explains idempotent behavior, guiding agents to safely re-run the tool. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like fm_reposition or state when this tool is preferred or dispreferred. The qualitative constraint is mentioned but not tied to usage context.

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