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

The description explicitly discloses irreversibility, that the draft becomes read-only, and that a review request is filed. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by saying exactly what state change happens and what the user should expect. It also clarifies the auth need for a verificationToken tied to the creating email.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, then prerequisite and irreversibility. The sentence about optional fields being left blank is useful but somewhat tangential to the tool's own parameters, keeping it a half-step below perfect.

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 low-complexity tool with two well-described parameters and strong annotations, the description covers the submission outcome, auth requirement, irreversibility, and resulting state. The return value is simply described as the request status, which is sufficient given no output schema.

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. The description adds meaning by clarifying that verificationToken must belong to the email that created the draft and that this email becomes the contact for the request, which is not fully stated 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?

The description states a specific action: submitting a draft for review by the GVRN team, and says the tool returns the request status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_incorporation_draft, update_incorporation_draft, and get_incorporation_status.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to call it: after a draft exists and the email has been verified, since a verificationToken is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' framing.

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