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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add the real behavior: this is a non-destructive write that stamps a check timestamp without altering the stored value, plus an un-retire mode via restore:true. That's meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention permission requirements or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, when to use it, and the restore flag, with the actionable part front-loaded. The trailing API reference URL is slightly extraneous but harmless and consistent with the tool family.

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 non-destructive mutation with an optional un-retire mode and no output schema, the description covers the value-preservation guarantee, the usage trigger, and the alternative mode. It leaves minor gaps (what happens if the fact doesn't exist, whether client/project scoping is required), but nothing critical to correct invocation.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces key ('exactly as it appears') and restore ('bring back a retired fact'), matching the schema descriptions rather than extending them. 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 ('Stamp ... as checked and still true today') on a specific resource (one client or project fact) and explicitly notes it does NOT change the value. This cleanly separates it from update_client_context (which changes values) and retire_context_fact (the inverse operation).

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('facts get_client_context lists as not confirmed in 60+ days') and names the upstream sibling tool that surfaces those facts. Also covers the restore path for retired facts, implicitly distinguishing it from retire_context_fact. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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