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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/destructiveness profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: verification is a hard gate and project_id is immutable once registered. Missing auth/permission expectations and what happens on duplicate registration keeps it from 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: what it does, the hard requirement and its rationale, and a mutability constraint. The verification requirement is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the critical immutable/verification constraints are covered. However, for a mutation tool with 7 mostly-undocumented optional fields, the agent lacks guidance on what to supply and has no statement about duplicate-registration failure or permissions.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden — but it only explains verification_ref (with examples like D-Score/land-verification/registry id) and project_id's immutability. Five parameters (name, location, beneficiary, methodology, registry_ref) get no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 and resource ("Register a ... restoration project") plus the downstream purpose (retirements against its credits can be funded), which goes beyond a bare restatement of the name. It does not name a sibling like list_projects or delist_credit to explicitly distinguish itself, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — only verified conservation is funded and verification_ref is mandatory — which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative path for unverified projects, so it falls short of 5.

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