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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, open-world, non-idempotent write, so the mutation profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely new fact beyond annotations — that saving an answer also applies existing profile credit rewards — but it omits whether re-answering overwrites a prior answer and what the credit application actually changes.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the side effect trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully describes the payload. But for a state-changing onboarding write with a credit-granting side effect, the description gives no guidance on section coverage, ordering, or re-submission behavior, leaving the agent to infer workflow from the schema alone.

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% and the oneOf branches with const sections make the accepted shapes fully self-documenting, so the baseline is high. The description adds nothing about the section/value pairs, but with zero top-level parameters and a complete schema, the schema carries the semantics adequately.

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 verb 'Save' and resource 'eligibility answer' are identifiable, but the description never says which onboarding sections exist (authorization, salary, location, employment, clearance) even though the schema is a discriminated union on them. It also doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_onboarding, which reads as the natural counterpart.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_onboarding (read the current state first?) or update_preferences (a different kind of saved setting). The only hint is the word 'onboarding' in the name, which the agent must infer from.

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