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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the rejected document is excluded from VAT and export, the action is reversible via approval, and an audit entry is written to document history.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, consequences, reversibility, audit trail. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect (VAT/export exclusion), reversibility, and audit logging. Only the interaction with bulk_reject_documents and any permission requirements are 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id, reason) are already documented in the schema, including length bounds. The description only echoes 'with a reason' plus examples, adding marginal meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (rejects) and resource (document) and adds the reason argument with concrete examples (duplication, private expense). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with approve_document or bulk_reject_documents, though the reversal sentence hints at the approval relationship.

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 examples of rejection reasons imply when the tool applies, and the reversal note implies the inverse operation belongs to approve_document. However, no explicit when-to-use predicate or reference to bulk_reject_documents for multi-document cases is given.

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