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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this in plain language ('Changes nothing') and adds real value by disclosing the return surface — the state set plus changes requested and hold/rejection reasons — which is not in any structured field.

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?

Three compact sentences: outcome first, disclosure of return values second, sibling routing last. No filler, and the most important fact is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and a trivial input schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating states and mentioning reasons. It stops short of describing format or pagination, but for a single-business status read that is a minor gap.

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% and the single business parameter is fully documented there, including its optional semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the business verification state') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling agenta_status_get. It also enumerates the possible states, so an agent knows exactly what this tool reports without opening the 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?

It explicitly routes one alternative case ('For the whole go-live picture use agenta_status_get'), which is the closest sibling. It gives no guidance on the verify_submit/resubmit/declaration siblings or prerequis ites, so the when-to-use picture is clear but not exhaustive.

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