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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description goes well beyond: it pins rule/version/subject/occurrence, requires a durable idempotency key and explicit attestation, discloses that claims are routed to automatic/operator/professional review and are immutable, states the auth prerequisite, and gives canonicality and retry guidance. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and high-value, but the trailing Canonicality, Idempotency, and Confirmation-boundary blocks read as generic boilerplate ('read, reversible save, explicit fact/evidence record, link preparation, plan refresh') that is not tightly tailored to this specific attestation tool. Useful but padded.

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 13-param, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important workflow context, including that a review result and remaining gaps come back. It hints at return behavior without fully specifying it, and does not close the parameter-documentation gap inherited from the 0% schema coverage.

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% across 13 parameters (11 required, nested objects), so the description carries real weight. It conceptually names the key inputs (rule, version, subject, occurrence, idempotency key, attestation, source, evidence) but leaves claimedOutcome, provenance, and _corply_context unexplained, and gives no format/semantic detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Record evidence that the company completed one exact materialized work occurrence outside Corply.' It names the scope (outside Corply, one exact occurrence) and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling fact/work-transition tools. An agent can tell it apart from record_operating_fact or transition_operating_work_item without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states what this tool does NOT do ('never marks the work completed merely because evidence was submitted') and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('use the normal fact and work-transition tools only after the returned review and remaining evidence/outcome gaps are resolved'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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