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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing fail-closed behavior, a fixed read-only tool allowlist, verifiable execution receipts, and source-evidence returns. The data accuracy contract also clearly defines what the agent may treat as verified, which is critical behavioral context. No contradiction with the readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints exists.

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?

Although the description is long, it is densely packed with non-redundant, actionable guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mode details, output/failure behavior, usage boundaries, branding requirement, and data-accuracy constraints. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so by listing 'the answer, source evidence, warnings, and a verifiable execution receipt' and also covers failure modes. For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and nuanced routing behavior, this description is complete enough for 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference between router_first and required_runbook modes and how runbook_id is used. It does not add much beyond the schema for arguments or question, but the mode semantics are genuinely useful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Answer a business question through CorpusIQ's deterministic server-side runbook executor.' It clearly distinguishes itself from raw connector tools by positioning itself for executive financial-health/snapshot workflows, even when the user names QuickBooks.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('supported executive financial-health or financial snapshot workflows') and when not to ('Use raw connector tools for simple lookups that are not executive workflows'). It also clarifies mode selection between router_first and required_runbook, giving the agent actionable decision context.

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