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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds valuable context: the action is queued, returns a requestId, and recomputes dependent cost-basis records. It does not fully explain terminal-state semantics or status polling, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the queued request behavior. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential queued-action and requestId context, and the schema covers the parameters. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on how to consume the requestId, though the waitForCompletion parameter and sibling get_request_status tool partially cover that workflow.

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%, and the schema documents each parameter clearly, including the precise meaning of newValueQuote as an exact per-unit decimal string. The description mainly reinforces 'per unit' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: set a corrected fair market value per unit for one asset on an accounting transaction, then recompute dependent cost-basis records. This clearly differentiates it from generic transaction update tools and other siblings, while the queued-action note adds a distinct operational trait.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is mentioned. The phrase 'corrected fair market value' implies the tool is for fixing an erroneous FMV, but an agent is left to infer that rather than being told how this differs from related transaction operations.

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