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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Compute' hints at a calculation, but the description never says whether this mutates stored state (records an adjustment), requires specific permissions, or is idempotent — critical for a tool taking a fleet_id and declaration object.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 tool with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits the declaration structure, the return value, and any side-effect behavior. An agent cannot confidently construct the call from this text alone.

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% and there are two parameters including a nested 'declaration' object, so the description must compensate. It only echoes 'declaration' via 'verified declaration' and says nothing about fleet_id or the shape of the declaration object.

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 verb 'Compute' plus the resource 'bond-capped adjustment for a verified declaration' names a specific operation, but the modifier 'exact-sum bond-capped' is opaque domain jargon that leaves the actual output ambiguous. It also does nothing to separate this from siblings like declare_event or settle_event.

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 phrase 'for a verified declaration' implies a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no alternative sibling is named despite settle_event and declare_event being obvious candidates for confusion.

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