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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a validation/preparation step and that submission and execution are separate, which clarifies the tool's non-executing behavior beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core action and the key scoping constraint (preparation only, not submission/execution) are front-loaded.

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 description is complete for a preparation tool with rich annotations and an output schema. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. It could mention what 'validated' entails, but the schema's detailed constraints cover much of that.

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%, so the description carries the burden, but it only mentions 'validated' without explaining parameter semantics. The schema itself has detailed constraints (patterns, lengths, const for service_id), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema is rich even though the description doesn't compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('validated DiligenceOps task for a specific Connect recipient'), and clarifies that submission, permission, and execution are separate steps. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like build_operator_brief, but the resource and validation focus are clear enough.

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 implies this is a preparation step, not a submission or execution step, and notes that submission/recipient permission/execution remain separate. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the separation of concerns gives clear context for when to use it.

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