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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that 'Earlier assessments are kept', disclosing a non-destructive history behavior. It also states the purpose direction without contradicting annotations. No contradiction; the added context on history is valuable beyond annotations.

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 a single paragraph of about 80 words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful guidance (direction of revision, timing, history retention). It is concise and well-structured, though slightly wordy in the philosophical opening.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should explain how to set key parameters and what the call returns. It provides context for when to call but omits guidance on using 'confidence', 'needs_human', and the expected effect of the call. The description is adequate for a simple update but incomplete for full agent comprehension.

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 only 20% (only 'note' has a description). The description indirectly explains 'red_flags' (retire a red flag) and 'unit_economics' (raise a cost), but it does not clarify 'confidence' (required enum), 'needs_human', or the full role of 'note'. The description does not compensate enough for the low schema coverage, leaving several parameters semantically under-specified.

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 clearly states the verb 'Revise' and the resource 'viability read', with explicit direction on how to use it (retire a red flag, raise a cost). It distinguishes from initial assessment tools by noting 'Your first assessment was a prediction', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: call it 'once you have evidence' and 'say it early if it is not working'. It implies when to use it (after initial assessment) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is strong enough for an agent to infer correct usage.

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