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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: "Soft-delete" for delete, "restore" for soft-deleted debts, and "include_deleted" for listing. Yet it omits important side effects like whether settle changes status, how update handles partial fields, or any permission requirements. It gives basic behavioral clues but not a comprehensive safety or mutation profile.

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 a concise, well-structured bullet list with a front-loaded summary sentence. Every bullet is functional and adds necessary information about an action and its requirements. There is no filler or redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 multi-action tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers every action, its purpose, and required parameters, which is largely complete. It falls short of full completeness by not describing return values or error/edge-case behavior, but the action-oriented guidance is strong enough to make the tool usable without excessive guesswork.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema itself, mostly restating which parameters are required per action (already present in each parameter's description). It does consolidate per-action requirements into a readable format, but it does not introduce new meanings for parameters themselves.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: "Create, list, update, settle, delete, restore, or summarize debts." This covers all actions and clearly distinguishes the tool as the debt-management resource among many resource-specific siblings (e.g., gift_manage, note_manage, task_manage). The bullet list further reinforces the exact scope for each action.

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?

Each action bullet provides when to use it and required parameters, such as "action='create': Track a new debt. Requires contact_id, amount, direction." This gives clear context for selecting the appropriate action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'use activity_list for transactions'), so it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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