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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight by disclosing that it only creates a proposal and nothing changes until confirm_action, the unlock prerequisite, the one-for-one/same-stakeholder mechanics, the new holding's tax scheme of None, and that the original holding is reduced.

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 purpose and key constraints are front-loaded, and each sentence conveys a distinct rule (target validity, vesting defaults, partial conversion, proposal-only nature, prerequisites). It is dense but essentially waste-free, though longer than strictly minimal.

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-style tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers workflow prerequisites, constraints, partial-conversion rules, and the proposal/confirm lifecycle. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly without the output schema.

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 the 3 baseline applies, but the description adds interpretive value beyond the schema: omitting the vesting schedule means no vesting, and partial conversion is only possible once vesting is stopped. It does not enumerate every one of the 11 parameters, so it improves on but doesn't fully replace the schema.

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 ('Proposes converting shares from one holding into a different share class of the same company'), including the one-for-one and same-stakeholder constraints. It is easily distinguished from siblings like transfer_shares, exercise_options, and create_holding.

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?

It names explicit alternatives and preconditions: use stop_vesting first for partial conversions, unlock_shareflo must be called first, and confirm_action is required to apply. It also states a clear exclusion (shares can't convert into options, and options can't be converted).

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