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

Annotations declare destructive=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it states the write persists at the institution, cannot be reverted via this API, does not actually transmit the report (final submission is manual on the info-link center), that omitting confirm only previews, and that each call consumes 1 token. Rich, non-redundant behavioral context with no contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the REQUIRES prerequisite and the irreversible-write warning, then flows into the confirm flow. It is dense and long but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; no 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?

For an 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: auth prerequisite, irreversibility, preview-before-confirm procedure, input provenance, and token cost. Nothing essential is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds value beyond the schema: the confirm preview-vs-save semantics, the origin of rrkey, and the lookup sources for the health insurance and occupation codes. It does not cover every field (e.g., account_link_id resolution), so it stops short of full compensation.

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+resource: saves the acquisition report as a draft to the info-link center and returns a receipt number. Clearly distinguished from siblings like los_save and from the final submission step, which is explicitly said to happen elsewhere.

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 prerequisites (prior login with same account_link_id), an explicit two-step confirm flow (preview, get user consent, re-call with confirm=true), and named sources for input values (acqs_member_lookup for rrkey, com_cd.list for codes). Leaves little to inference.

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