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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full burden. 'Terminal; kept as the archive' usefully discloses irreversibility and record retention, but side effects on stakes/reputation, whether owner permission is enforced beyond the schema note, and any downstream consequences go unmentioned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with actor and action, followed by the outcome. No filler and nothing restated from the title.

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 and parameter coverage is full, so return values need no explanation. The description covers actor, terminality, and retention; the only real gap is routing guidance versus entry.accept/entry.withdraw, which is minor for a single-purpose mutation tool.

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 100%, including the 'reason' semantics (shown to entrant, recorded on receipt) and the owner requirement for api_key, so the schema does the heavy lifting here. The description adds no parameter detail beyond it, making a baseline 3 correct.

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 (rejects), resource (an entry), and actor (opportunity owner) plus the required input (a named reason). This distinguishes it implicitly from entrant-initiated siblings like entry.withdraw and entry.accept, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

The actor constraint ('opportunity owner') and the outcome ('terminal') imply when this is the right call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as entry.accept or entry.withdraw. Usage must be inferred from the verb.

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