finalize_handoff

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false (a write). The description goes far beyond this by disclosing deterministic server-side assembly, fail-closed validation of evidence_refs against session retrieval, session-scoped persistence, the exact receipt format, immutable byte-identical reads, and that it 'never writes to your data.' This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 description is densely packed into three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mechanics/validation, and access/constraints. It front-loads the primary purpose. Slightly long but well-structured; no redundant filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, this description fully compensates: it specifies the exact receipt fields ({handoff_id, resource_uri, sha256, length, canonical:true}), the immutable resource URI, and critical constraints (appendices exactly once, no character limit). All 6 parameters are covered by the schema, and the description covers behaviors not in the schema, making it wholly complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema: it gives concrete formats for evidence_refs ('<dataset>::<column>#column' or dataset names), explains the validation behavior ('unknown refs fail closed'), and mentions handoff/v2 claims binding evidence per claim. These details enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Finalize' and a defined deliverable: 'one canonical Markdown handoff for a completed data audit/analysis.' It clearly identifies this as the terminal documentation tool, distinct from siblings like summarize_dataset or run_sql, and references protocol/version identifiers (jdatamunch.handoff/v1) for precision.

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 description states this is for a 'completed data audit/analysis,' giving a clear temporal context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the handoff should be finalized only after audit/analysis work is done, which is sufficient guidance.

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