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

With annotations only covering the mutation/safety profile, the description carries real behavioral weight: a daily machine pass matches the request, exactly one status email on match, a plain 30-day status with nearby reading if unmatched, and that the principal's contact email is required for follow-up. It even discloses cost ('Free'). This is well beyond what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then the workflow, then the follow-up requirement. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the trailing 'Free.' is a minor standalone fragment but still useful information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return (an id) and the entire downstream lifecycle (match, status email, 30-day fallback), which is what an agent needs to set expectations. Only the exact status enum/format of that follow-up is unspecified, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including why/fromGap/requester. The description restates the email's purpose ('your human principal's contact email for follow-up') and the topic scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (propose) and resource (coverage for a topic/entity/standing question), and sharply scopes it to NET-NEW coverage 'we don't track yet' — which is exactly what separates it from siblings like get_topic_record, save_watch, or create_order. It also states the concrete effect: records a work order and returns its id.

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 'NET-NEW ... we don't track yet' phrasing is a strong when-to-use condition and implies you shouldn't use it for already-tracked items. However, it never names an alternative for the adjacent case (e.g., use save_watch/get_topic_record for existing coverage), so routing is inferable but not explicit.

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