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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: an authorization requirement (approval:self_approve scope), a human-in-the-loop fallback via a returned link, and the guarantee that price stays unchanged. Annotations only cover the safety profile (destructive=true), so the auth-gating context is genuinely additive. It does not explain what the resubmission replaces or the link's lifecycle.

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?

The content is front-loaded and each clause is informative, but the entire description is duplicated verbatim in English, roughly doubling length with no added information.

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 no output schema and no annotations covering behavior, the description supplies the key operational facts: trigger status, auth gate, fallback, and price invariance. Missing only incidental detail such as the return link's handling and the fate of the original submission.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It never references orderId, reasoning, or clientOrderId, and does not clarify the recipient's dual inline-vs-addressId form beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource: corrects the recipient address of a letter and resubmits it. The status constraint ('awaiting_partner_fix') strongly scopes the tool. It stops short of naming siblings like order_send or setup_fix_link, so differentiation is inferred from the status condition rather than stated.

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?

Clear preconditions: only usable when the OAuth connection carries approval:self_approve, otherwise the human must open the returned link and decide in the portal. This gives an explicit when-not and fallback path. It does not route to a sibling tool for the new-letter case, keeping it just below a 5.

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