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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses a workflow refusal condition tied to schedule approval and accept_schedule_change, and it warns not to tell the client the deposit is paid unless the record already says so. These are meaningful operational and communication constraints that an agent would not infer from the structured fields alone.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the precondition, then the client-communication warning. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations already cover safety traits, the description covers the key workflow behavior well. However, it leaves the sole input parameter effectively undocumented, which is a notable gap 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its only parameter, scheduleId, and the description does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or source. It only indirectly references 'the schedule,' adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's field name and type.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Mark the deposit paid') and names a related sibling tool with a workflow precondition. It does not fully differentiate the action from other deposit-related siblings such as record_deposit or waive_deposit, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It gives clear conditional usage context: after schedule approval, the operation is refused until accept_schedule_change applies a mark_deposit_paid suggestion. That effectively names a when-not condition and a related alternative, though it does not state the positive case as explicitly as a 5 would require.

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