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

The description says 'Read-only,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction of the tool's behavioral safety profile, so the description cannot be trusted on this dimension.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then adds submission context. It is reasonably concise for the amount of domain context, though the parenthetical about future auto-posting is marginally extra.

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 need not be fully explained, but the description contradicts annotations and leaves both input parameters undocumented. For a two-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, this is not complete enough to guide reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for two parameters, including the required purchase_id. The description lists output record fields instead of explaining what purchase_id or retirement_reason mean or how they affect generation.

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 and resource: generate a Verra-portal-ready retirement record for a retirement made against Verra supply. It also names the key record fields and the registry cross-reference, which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as verify_retirement and verra_supply.

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 gives clear usage context: it applies to a retirement made against Verra supply and the generated record is submitted under the Viridis Verra account to finalize on-registry retirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the triggering condition is clear.

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