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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds some genuinely useful traits (idempotency/retry-key guidance, 'reversible save', trust returned actual_tool_output rather than a state-recovery call). But these are generic templated blocks, and the 'confirmation boundary' sentence lists unrelated categories (read, link preparation, plan refresh) that read as boilerplate rather than tool-specific behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, which is good, but subsequent sentences are dense policy boilerplate ('every prerequisite stated above', the multi-category confirmation list) that consumes space without adding tool-specific 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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly references return behavior (actual_tool_output, context_engineering), and annotations cover the safety profile. But with two undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no sibling differentiation, the definition is not complete enough to guarantee a correct invocation.

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 burden for both parameters. It loosely implies what should go in 'text' ('decision/fact') but never explains format, length, or scope, and it says nothing about the nested _corply_context id/receipt fields. With low coverage this is a real 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Persist a durable decision/fact into the connected company's context memory.' An agent can tell this is a fact/decision persistence tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like record_operating_fact, record_operating_evidence, or record_operating_event, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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 prerequisite sentence ('authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above') is a circular non-statement that provides no actionable condition, and 'every prerequisite stated above' refers to nothing in the visible definition. It states no when-to-use contrast against competing record_* siblings, so the agent must guess which memory/fact tool to pick.

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