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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool recomputes several audit artifacts, but does not disclose failure behavior, error handling, or the relationship to calculate_takeoff output beyond the 'prior result' hint.

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-loaded with the recomputation targets and ending with the input instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for a one-parameter verification tool, though it could more explicitly tie the 'prior result' to calculate_takeoff output.

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 carries the burden of explaining the sole parameter. It identifies result_json as the prior result object serialized as JSON, which is helpful, but does not specify the expected shape, where to obtain it, or serialization details.

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 names specific recomputation targets (takeoff audit hash, notary payload, pack currency, QT9 conservation), which clearly distinguishes this as a verification tool rather than a calculation or listing tool. It does not explicitly name or route against siblings, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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 phrase 'Pass the prior result object as JSON' implies the tool is used after a prior result exists, likely from calculate_takeoff. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus calculate_takeoff or what to do if no prior result is available.

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