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

Annotations mark this non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds real context beyond that: no payment or cap-table change results from proposal or board approval, the two-month option window and unvested shares are checked, and retry/idempotency behavior is described. The canonicality/confirmation boilerplate is generic but the mutation-effect disclosure is genuinely useful.

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 critical precondition and no-side-effect guarantee are front-loaded, but roughly half the text is reusable governance boilerplate ('Canonicality', 'Confirmation boundary') that is not specific to this tool and dilutes the signal.

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, 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side-effect boundaries, idempotency, and confirmation needs. Only the identity parameters and the concrete response shape are left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 carries the full burden. It maps meaning onto several parameters: the RSPA to agreementDocumentId, unvested shares to shareCount, and the option window and acceleration/waiver/transfer review to eligibilityConfirmed; it also implies the retry key for idempotencyKey. companyId and allocationId remain unexplained, keeping it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Propose a founder cliff repurchase') and scopes it to a completed departure plus an executed Corply RSPA. It is distinguishable from siblings like send_repurchase_exercise_notice or propose_governed_departure, but never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('only after a completed departure and an executed Corply RSPA are verified') and reiterates the auth prerequisite. It does not name a sibling tool or state when NOT to use this one, so no exclusion guidance.

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