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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: the required source state, the merchant precondition, and that the new state is returned. It does not mention auth/permission needs, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the second sentence restates the action ('sends it back for review') already conveyed by the opening clause, making the text partially redundant. Trimming the repetition would yield a tighter definition.

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 a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state precondition, the triggering condition, and that the new state is returned. Only permission/scope details are absent, which is a modest omission.

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?

Single optional 'business' parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already explains the act-as-business semantics and the omit-to-act-as-yourself default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific action (resubmit verification for review) and differentiates implicitly from the sibling agenta_verify_submit by scoping to the post-changes state. The phrase 'send back for review' is slightly ambiguous (could read as returning to the merchant), but the follow-up clause clarifies intent.

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: only when verification is in the changes-requested state AND the merchant has made the changes. It does not, however, name the alternative tool (agenta_verify_submit) or state what to do in other states, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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