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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, not open-world), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds some context by tying the record to a contact and a date, but says nothing about the approval_id gate that the schema implies, nor about what happens if the event type is invalid. Adequate but thin.

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 tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and examples doing useful illustrative work. Minor waste in the slightly redundant framing, but nothing that should be cut for correctness.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. For a six-parameter mutation tool the description is still short of complete: the approval_id single-use workflow and the requirement that life_event_type_id reference a valid type are left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lightly reinforces the contact_id and happened_at semantics ('records it on the contact with the date') but adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema already documents — notably it never explains the required life_event_type_id.

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 action (records a life event) on a specific resource (the contact) with a concrete artifact (the date), reinforced by two worked examples. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like life_events.update, since 'records it on the contact' could plausibly describe either creating or editing an entry.

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?

Provides a clear triggering condition ('when the user tells you about a life event'), which is real usage guidance. It gives no exclusions or routing advice however — nothing tells the agent when to prefer life_events.update or life_events.list instead, so the guidance is implied rather than comparative.

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