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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by detailing the scope of the check (source records, finalised accounts, official worksheets, conditional schedules) and clarifying that it does not calculate or submit. This goes beyond the annotation-level safety information and provides useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses the second sentence to clarify a key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 having 21 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a report, a list of missing items) or any prerequisites/error conditions. It leaves the agent without critical context on how to interpret the tool's response, making it incomplete for such a complex tool.

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 must compensate for the 21 parameters. It only provides high-level categories (source records, finalised accounts, official worksheets, conditional schedules) without mapping them to specific parameters like recordsKept, businessAccountsReady, or schedule readiness flags. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify the varying conditional logic or the meaning of specific booleans, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check whether the source records, finalised accounts, official worksheets, and conditional schedules needed for manual Form B preparation are ready.' It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (readiness for Form B), and explicitly distinguishes from related actions by stating 'This does not calculate or submit Form B.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_be_2025_draft.

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 description provides clear context for usage: it is a pre-check for manual Form B preparation. The statement 'This does not calculate or submit Form B' clarifies what it is not for, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it. Thus it has clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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