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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a soft removal (archive, not delete) affecting quote visibility, and clarifies the '(owner or office)' scope. It does not say whether the archive is reversible, who may perform it, or what happens to quotes already carrying the link.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and does the real work. The second sentence about Doing Work not processing financing or charging fees is product context rather than tool-selection information, and the third about the shop's own financing company is similarly tangential.

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 no explanation, and a single-param tool is simple. Still, for an unannotated mutation, the description leaves reversibility, authorization, and effect on existing quotes unstated.

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, financing_link_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the id identifies the link being archived, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the name.

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 (archive a financing link) plus the observable effect: it stops showing on quotes. That is enough to separate it from financing_list and financing_save, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'so it no longer shows on quotes' suggests this is the way to retire a link. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of what to do instead (e.g., financing_save to edit vs. archive to retire), and no prerequisites.

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