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

The description discloses important behaviors: optimistic concurrency via if_match_updated_at, append-only reconciliation receipt, preserving history for audit, and removing records from the active queue. It also explicitly states 'never applies, sends, or contacts anyone.' The readOnlyHint annotation is contradicted by the described write behaviors (creating a receipt, removing queue records), so the description actually provides more truthful behavioral context than the annotation.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then gives the trigger condition, then lists key behavioral guarantees. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the concurrency mechanism, audit trail, and side effects. It could have explicitly mentioned the redacted receipt format or dry_run behavior in the description, but these are covered by the parameter schema and output schema. The misleading readOnlyHint annotation is a gap, but the description compensates.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description reinforces the meaning of if_match_updated_at ('optimistic concurrency') and adds context for dry_run via 'without writing,' but it does not add much semantic detail beyond the schema for parameters like corrections or tenant_database_type. This is adequate given the high schema 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 identifies the tool's purpose: correcting an owner-reported application-history state with optimistic concurrency and an append-only receipt. It specifies the resource ('application-history state') and the action ('reconcile'), and distinguishes it from adjacent talent_scout tools by emphasizing audit preservation and queue removal.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'when an intake or imported record was incorrectly shown as applied.' It also provides exclusions by noting it never applies, sends, or contacts anyone, which implies it is not for outreach or application creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those cases.

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