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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining what idempotency means in practice ('opening a call you already hold repositions it instead of creating a duplicate') and the qualitative constraint (refusing numbers to avoid investment advice). It does not cover all behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, side effects), but the added context is meaningful.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. The most critical information is front-loaded: the primary action and what is recorded. Idempotency and the qualitative constraint are presented concisely. Every 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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the core action and two input constraints. It does not explain what the tool returns, the meaning of optional parameters like tags or story_url, or the overall effect on the system (e.g., what 'your book' is). Key context is missing for a tool with this complexity, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 only 30%, with descriptions for lean, event, and rationale. The description reinforces the qualitative requirement for lean and rationale, which adds some meaning. However, it does not clarify the remaining 7 parameters (tags, category, story_url, venue_url, story_title, tenant_slug, access_token), leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand their purpose. The description partially compensates but is insufficient for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record a new call on your book' with details on what is recorded (event, lean, rationale). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like fm_reposition or fm_close_position, though the idempotent behavior hints at the difference. The verb 'record' and the resource 'new call on your book' are specific, but the description could be more explicit about when to use this vs. alternatives.

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 provides implicit usage guidelines: the tool is idempotent (safe to re-run) and requires qualitative input for lean and rationale. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to open vs. reposition vs. close). It gives a constraint on input format but no explicit context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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