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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile, and the description adds substantial side-effect detail beyond them: it changes the asset-collection flag and derived estate facts, and for eligible paid estates may start public-source research, add checklist tasks, and send a completion email. This is exactly the escalation behavior an agent needs to know before triggering it.

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-loaded with the core action and the trigger conditions, and every sentence carries operational information. It is somewhat long and restates the 'list is complete' point several times, which costs a little tightness on a single-purpose tool.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, triggers, prerequisites, timing, and downstream side effects, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents estate_id at 100% coverage including the 'call list_my_estates first' guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the 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?

States a specific action on a specific resource: recording that the user finished describing the estate's assets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_asset ('this tool records that the LIST is finished, it does not save assets'), so an agent can tell it apart from its closest sibling without opening either 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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('that's everything', 'the only asset'), the prerequisite (every asset already saved via create_asset), timing (same turn, do not ask for a second confirmation), and a constraint on repeat calls (only once the list is final). Nothing is left to inference.

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