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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context — the customer-stated precondition, the read-vs-pursuit distinction, and 'Free' (no cost) — but says nothing about whether an existing status is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the guardrail and cost. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Purpose, trigger condition, and cost are covered, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the note parameter and the effect of re-recording a status.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to status by framing the values as customer engagement states, but nb_id (the NB###### identifier) and especially note (max 500 chars) get no explanation anywhere.

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 (record) and resource (an opportunity's engagement state), enumerating the six statuses it can record. An agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_opportunity and search_opportunities without opening the schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('Call it only when the customer says so') and an explicit exclusion ('reading a bid is never a pursuit'), which is exactly the when-not guidance needed for a status-tracking write.

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