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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that body is required because claim quotes are checked against it, and that the tool returns a source id used downstream. It doesn't discuss failure modes (e.g., rejecting ambiguous text) but adds meaningful write-behavior context.

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 the purpose, then the return value, then the routing and cross-references. Nothing is repeated; every sentence, including the Related line, earns its place.

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?

Complete for a 3-param mutation tool with a 100% coverage schema and an output schema. The description covers purpose, required inputs, return value, and integration points without over-explaining.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents url, body, and title. The description reinforces that body is required and enumerates example content types, but adds no syntax or format constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Adds a source to the Claims & sources page') and clarifies the domain concept by describing what a source is (pasted text like call notes, an audit, a spec sheet). An agent can distinguish this from save_claim, update_source, and delete_source 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?

Explicit routing: use the returned id as sourceId in save_claim or as overlay evidence in update_brand_profile; to add a claim and its source in one call, pass source to save_claim. It names the alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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