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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it creates a proposal (job_id/proposal_id), does not modify the PDF, discloses billing ('first 5 each month are free'), and specifies ephemeral retention with deletion timing (60-70 minutes after last activity). No contradiction with 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 description is dense but not wasteful; each sentence contributes (purpose, inputs, behavior, billing, retention). It front-loads the core purpose and usage distinction. Slightly long but appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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?

It covers the essential operational details: inputs, proposal contents, policy, output (job_id/proposal_id), polling interval, billing, and retention. The only gap is the unexplained 'library' parameter. Given the output schema exists and other details are thorough, it is nearly complete.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden. It explains form_id vs pdf_url/pdf_base64, context_text/context_urls, policy (safe/strict), and retention (ephemeral/account_default). However, it does not explain the 'library' parameter, leaving one parameter undocumented. Still, it adds substantial meaning beyond raw schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Prepare a form from documents' and clarifies it produces a proposal (answers with sources, missing items, disagreements) before writing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from fill_form_from_context (which writes) and commit_proposal (which commits), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 directly says 'Same inputs as fill_form_from_context ... but nothing is written into the PDF: read the proposal, answer what is missing, then commit.' This names the alternative tool and provides a clear when-to-use condition. It also explains policy options and the follow-up action.

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