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

It goes well beyond the three boolean annotations by disclosing that submission stages rather than canonicalizes, that resolvers keep asking until operator approval, and that retries should follow idempotency rules or state inspection. The 'read, reversible save' phrase is imprecise, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 opening two sentences are focused, but the tail includes generic boilerplate on Canonicality, Idempotency, and Confirmation boundary that is mostly not tool-specific and the 'every prerequisite stated above' line adds no information. It reads as a templated block rather than tight, purpose-built guidance.

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 11-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, this is insufficient. It tells the agent what the operation means but not how to populate the majority of parameters or interpret the result.

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?

With only 9% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description must compensate, but it only explains filePath/fileHash. It does not clarify factKey, value, sourceReference, sourceObservedAt, title, idempotencyKey, companyId, subjectId, or _corply_context.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('submit ... document for an evidence-confirmed operating fact') and states the outcome: a staged typed assertion, bound immutable artifact, and operator-review claim. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like record_operating_fact or record_operating_evidence, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It clearly states one important precondition ('filePath/fileHash must come from upload_operating_evidence') and explains that the fact is not canonical until approved. However, it never says when to choose this over similar sibling tools or when not to use it.

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