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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says 'Append an immutable correction' and references an 'immutable correction receipt' — appending/writing a new correction record is a state change and contradicts read-only semantics. Per the scoring rule, a contradiction with annotations yields a score of 1 despite the useful no-side-effect disclosures.

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 sentences with no filler: the first defines the operation and target, the second crisply bounds side effects. It avoids repeating schema details and remains compact despite the tool's 10-parameter complexity.

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 complex tool, the description covers the essential behavioral semantics: immutable append, original unchanged, and explicit no-side-effect boundaries. Idempotency, auth, and database routing are covered by annotations and schema descriptions, and an output schema exists. The main completeness gap is the readOnly annotation conflict, which is an annotation mismatch rather than missing descriptive content.

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 high at 80%, with most parameters already explained (direction, idempotency_key, correction_reason, original_receipt_id, tenant_database_type, and credential key handling). The free-text description only adds the overall context that channel and direction are being corrected, which is useful but not richly param-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('Append an immutable correction') and a precise resource ('channel and direction of an existing Talent Scout Relationship Core receipt'). The added clarification that the original receipt is never changed reinforces scope and distinguishes this from ordinary relationship-activity recording. Even without naming a sibling, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 use case is clear: correct an existing relationship-activity receipt's channel or direction via an immutable append. It also excludes side-effect behaviors ('never sends, applies, scrapes, or changes candidacy status'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide a when-not-to-use comparison.

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