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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive), the description discloses that a human team completes the action, that the owner must be signed in, and that the response reports what is missing when preconditions fail. It does not cover idempotency or what happens if the request is filed repeatedly.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its gating condition, with zero filler. The 'Guest Logic team presses the last button' line earns its place by setting expectations about who completes the process.

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, the description adequately explains the return signal ('names what is missing') and the auth requirement. Minor gap: no statement about re-filing behavior or what a successful filing yields (e.g., a ticket or status change).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description usefully explains that all inputs are preconditions read from account state rather than arguments. Nothing further is required of it here.

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 and resource ('files the request to go live') and adds a validation behavior ('otherwise names what is missing'). This is distinguishable from siblings like setup_status or confirm_facts, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen 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?

Gives clear timing conditions: call it once the legal name, address, billing e-mail and accepted owner agreement are in place. It also clarifies this is a request rather than the go-live itself ('the Guest Logic team presses the last button'), which prevents misuse as a status-completion tool. No explicit exclusions against siblings like setup_status.

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