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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds crucial consequences: the action is irreversible, the draft becomes read-only, a review request is filed, and the verification token must belong to the email that created the draft and becomes the contact. These details materially exceed the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then prerequisites and irreversible consequence. No repetition or 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?

For a mutation tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, return status, and optional-field handling. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds that verificationToken is for the email that created the draft and that this email becomes the request contact. The draftId meaning is already well documented in the schema.

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 (submits), resource (draft), and target (GVRN review team), and distinguishes the action from create/update siblings by noting the draft becomes read-only. An agent can identify this as the terminal submission step 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?

Implies the draft must already exist and the email must be verified through the verificationToken requirement, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name update_incorporation_draft as the alternative for pre-submission changes or state when not to use this tool.

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