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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (value vs label duality) and the exact scope of what is listed. It does not mention ordering, completeness, or paging, but for a static choice list those are minor.

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 what is returned, then how to use it; two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence is long and comma-heavy, straining readability, which keeps it out of 5 territory, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does so by explaining that results are value/label pairs and what categories are covered. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the response. Minor gap: it doesn't state the shape of the collection itself (list length, ordering).

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?

Only one parameter (organisation_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the singleton-vs-multi-org behaviour fully. The description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 resource — the value/label pairs that type fields of new records take — and enumerates the carried categories (income types, expense types, commission under the org's word, contact types). It implicitly ties itself to the 'adding tools' (the create_* siblings), so an agent can tell it apart. The vague tool name 'list_choices' is rescued by the description, but the description never contrasts this explicitly against the many list_* siblings it sits beside.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('match what the person says ... to a value') with real examples ('my dental income', 'she is a tenant'), plus a fallback rule: when nothing matches, show labels and ask. This is clear operational context. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for the no-match case, so it is not a 5.

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