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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the risk profile is already communicated. The description adds context that this is not a legal review action, which helps prevent misuse. It does not disclose what side effects occur beyond recording, but the idempotentHint and destructiveHint partly cover that, so a mid score is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with clear front-loading: the purpose comes first, and the caveat about legal review is concise. Every sentence earns its place, though it could have mentioned the confirmation flow slightly more explicitly.

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 tool with 6 parameters, an output schema, and a nuanced confirmation workflow, the description is minimally adequate. It communicates the non-legal nature and the 'after confirmation' timing, but leaves the agent to infer the meaning of expected_version, confirmation_token, and idempotency_key. Given the complexity of SAFE approvals, a bit more context about the recording workflow would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the approval reference concept. The input schema itself is fairly self-explanatory with required fields like evidence_version_id, reference, approved const true, and company_reviewed const true. The confirmation_token and idempotency_key semantics are not explained, but their names are suggestive, and the schema constrains the key fields.

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 action ('record... approval reference'), the resource ('company-reviewed SAFE approval'), and the key constraint that metadata is not legal review. It distinguishes this as the approval-recording step, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sparkclose.model_safe or sparkclose.record_receipt.

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 phrase 'After confirmation' conveys a prerequisite and 'Metadata is not legal review' warns against treating this as legal sign-off. However, there is no explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for post-confirmation bookkeeping versus other sparkclose workflow steps.

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