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

Annotations only tell us it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the costly side effects the agent cannot infer: a 20P charge on successful auth send, a mobile push notification to the user, and the fact that it returns transactionId/status but does not itself produce the documents. This is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the side effects, then the workflow, then the caution. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing bracketed fee note is slightly tacked on and could be folded into the billing sentence.

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 high-complexity, 18-parameter, 9-required tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what it returns (transactionId, status), the required follow-up call, the user-confirmation prerequisite, and the billing side effect. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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% across all 18 parameters, so the schema already documents every field including enums, formats, and conditional requirements (e.g., fax_no for delivery=04). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (request simple identity authentication) and resource (business evidence document integrated issuance), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_business_cert_bundle, which is the retrieval step rather than the auth request. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly instructs to call only after user confirmation, forbids repeating requests while approval is pending and forbids auto-approval, and names the exact next step (pass transactionId to get_business_cert_bundle). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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