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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: authorize/refuse conditions, the fact that approve executes nothing but writes a signed projected-value ledger entry, the re-pin special case, and reject's required reason. This is exactly the write-safety information annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action and auth constraint before edge cases. Every sentence carries a distinct fact; only the endpoint mapping at the end is redundant with the title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description supplies auth, refusal behavior, side effects, and reject requirements. An agent has everything needed 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?

With only 20% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it enumerates reject reasons with meaning, explains that "other" needs a note, and details approve/reject semantics. It does not describe proposal_id or the api_key format, but the schema covers the key.

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 precise verb and resource ("Decide one pending proposal") and its scope is single-item, distinguishing it from list_proposals. The description also names the HTTP endpoints it maps to, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ("only call this when the person it acts for has made the decision") and states the refusal conditions (not pending, expired, household changed). It also names the auth tier required (approver or owner key only), routing the agent away from a developer/viewer key.

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