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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds process context beyond that: the details go to a review queue and the call returns the new verification state. It does not say what happens on rejection, how long review takes, or whether submission can be undone short of resubmitting.

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?

Four sentences, but the first two are near-duplicates ('so the merchant can accept live payments' / 'so the account can take live payments'), which wastes the highest-value position. The required-field list and the declaration prerequisite are front-loaded reasonably well.

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 18-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the prerequisite, the required subset, and the return value shape. Remaining gaps are the undocumented optional parameters and the review/approval lifecycle, which the schema text carries only partially.

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, but the description adds information the schema does not carry: the required field set (legalName, country, street, city, url, acceptDeclaration) and the conditional requirement of registrationNumber when entity is business. This materially compensates for the schema's empty required list.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (submit business verification) plus the business outcome (accept live payments). It names agenta_verify_declaration as a related sibling, but does not distinguish itself from agenta_verify_status or agenta_verify_resubmit, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 states the enabling condition (so the account can take live payments) and imposes an explicit sequencing rule: only set acceptDeclaration after the merchant has read agenta_verify_declaration. There is no guidance on when to use this versus verify_status/verify_resubmit, but the prerequisite routing is genuinely useful.

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