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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description meaningfully expands on them: it explains it 'may replace or clear prior planning details,' 'stores planning details only,' and enumerates non-effects (no wallet/identity/document/fund changes, no crypto movement, no Proof of Funds letter). This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Opens with the core effect and keeps the trigger and clearing rules up front; the exclusion list that follows is long but each clause earns its place by preventing misrouting. Slightly dense but not padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, trigger, null semantics, and the full set of things this tool does not do. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 all four parameters (asset, workflow, wallet_id, target_price_usd) are already documented. The description restates the same fields and the null-clears-value convention without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (saves) and resource (planning details: property price, crypto asset/wallet, workflow) and ties it to a concrete effect (sidebar/conversation panel staying in step). It also differentiates from siblings by declaring what it is not (not a wallet, identity, document, funds, or offer mutation).

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Call it when the user states or changes any of these,' plus the null-clearing rule. It also lists what the tool must not be used for, implicitly routing agents to the wallet/funds/offer siblings, but it never names a specific alternative tool the way a 5 would.

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