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 the tool does not sign (no signature side effect) and that the $500 threshold governs inclusion, but says nothing about permissions, whether an existing prepared statement is overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, or what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, followed by the alternative mode and the explicit non-action. No filler and nothing buried.

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 unannotated creation/mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the attestation branch but leaves the entries item schema (items is a bare object with no properties) completely unexplained — a real gap given the tool's core job is enumerating subcontractors.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the none_attestation="yes" semantics (the 'no subcontractors or suppliers over $500' case) and implies entries holds the over-$500 list, but job_id is never described and the shape of each entry object is left entirely undefined.

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 ('Prepare'), a named artifact (Idaho 45-525(3) statement), and the exact content it must contain (subcontractors, materialmen, rental equipment providers over $500). It also distinguishes the two output modes, so an agent can tell it apart from subcontractors_get or subs_list without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the artifact being prepared and by 'Does not sign' (i.e., this is the pre-signature step), but the description never says when to prefer this over subcontractors_get or subs_list, nor what prerequisites (existing job, existing sub records) are needed. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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