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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool may write but is not destructive. The description says 'record', which aligns with a write operation, and adds that it does not involve supplier appointment, call, contract, or payment. This adds some behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or any further consequences of recording. No contradiction is present.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. Every word earns its place, and the negation is concise. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites, expected outcomes, return values, or parameter meaning. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call based solely on this description and the schema. The description lacks essential context for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. The description mentions 'public service' and 'checks', but does not explain any of the 7 parameters (data_classification, counterparty_id, service_url, task_class, checks, episode_id, explicit_read_only_consent). It provides no mapping from natural language to fields, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 ('Preflight') and resource ('one buyer-selected public service'), and clearly indicates the action is to 'record caller-declared delivery checks'. It explicitly negates what it does not do (no appointment, call, contract, payment), which distinguishes it from siblings like assurance_complete and assurance_verify that likely handle subsequent steps. This is precise and 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?

The description provides context that this is a preparatory step and explicitly excludes certain actions, but it does not name alternative tools or state conditions for when to use this vs. others. It implies usage as a preflight check but does not give explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance beyond the negation. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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