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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares read-only behavior ("writes, signs and executes nothing", "never runs a retest"), names the required environment settings, and specifies that the tenant comes from configuration and never from an argument. It also discloses failure semantics via the OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE triad and the rule that missing settings, disabled surfaces, or errors resolve to UNAVAILABLE rather than fabricated data, plus a version dependency on the TrustGate API. It does not cover latency, rate limits, or what the returned impact view contains beyond status.

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 content is dense and mostly earns its place, but the first sentence is a noun-phrase fragment that delays the verb, and the negative assurances (no retest, writes nothing, never made-up data, not a compliance finding) are restated across several sentences. Front-loading the proposal action and then the guardrails would tighten it without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description nevertheless adds useful status semantics and configuration prerequisites for a multi-step, graph-based analysis tool. The critical gap is the opaque free-form request object: for a tool whose entire input is a nested pass-through payload, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter, "request", typed only as an open object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema tells the agent nothing. The description gestures at the payload contents ("the change", "the graph you supply", "the records you supply") but gives no field names, structure, or required sub-keys, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call from the definition alone.

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 name-plus-description pairing makes it clear this produces an impact assessment and a requalification proposal for a change over a caller-supplied graph, and it explicitly separates itself from running a retest. The opening sentence is a fragment ("Impact and a requalification PROPOSAL...") and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling compare_qualification_change, so the purpose is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "for a change, over the graph you supply" suggests the input domain, and the caveat "a mapping or readout is not a compliance finding" implies boundaries. There is no explicit when-to-use versus compare_qualification_change, and no stated prerequisite workflow ordering, so an agent still has to infer the selection rule.

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