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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not state whether duplicate surcharges are rejected or merged, what permissions are required, whether the write is reversible, or what happens when marginType is invalid.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. However, brevity here is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a 9-parameter mutation.

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?

A 9-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: the intentId/RecordUserQuestion workflow, how to obtain carrierSurchargeId and marginType, and duplicate-handling behavior are all unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that organisationId makes the surcharge customer-specific largely restates the schema's own 'Customer organisation id for a customer-specific surcharge', adding no new syntax or format detail.

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 a precise resource chain: a partner surcharge price for a carrier surcharge on a contract. It is distinguishable from AddPartnerRate, UpdatePartnerSurcharge and SearchCarrierSurcharges, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. An agent is not told that carrierSurchargeId comes from SearchCarrierSurcharges/GetPartnerCarrierSurcharges, that carrierContractId comes from ListContracts, or that UpdatePartnerSurcharge is the alternative for modifying an existing entry.

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