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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotent, only certifies new proceeds, creates a tamper-evident hash chain. It does not cover authorization needs or error cases, but for a single-parameter tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and purpose, followed by idempotency details. No redundant or vague verbiage.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, and downstream use (CEO transfers). It lacks input format for `batch_id` and error scenarios, but the presence of an output schema and single parameter makes this adequate.

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%, but the tool description explains that `batch_id` identifies the disbursement schedule to freeze and that the operation is idempotent on it. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 that the tool freezes a disbursement schedule into a certified, tamper-evident batch using content-addressing and hash-chaining. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `verify_disbursement` by explaining it is the record used for actual Stripe transfers.

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 mentions idempotency on batch_id and that only newly-accrued proceeds are certified, avoiding double disbursement. It implies use as a precursor to CEO transfers, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `settlement_batch`.

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