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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful disclosure: the required verification.submit auth scope, that identity registry checks are routed to the Irish CRO for IE only, that VAT is verified through EU VIES, and that several fields are conditionally evaluated. It omits side effects (whether a verification record is persisted), failure behavior, and idempotency, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by routing/scope facts and then the conditional-field note. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler, though the dense conditional sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 an 11-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers routing, auth and conditional fields but is silent on the meaning of the required envelope parameters, on side effects, and on what the returned 'advisory decision' contains. It is minimum viable rather than complete.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the conditional evaluation of only three fields (transaction, customer_assertions, payment_destination) and leaves the remaining eight, including the required schema_version, request_id, policy_id and the supplier object, entirely unexplained.

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: 'Verify a supplier's identity and VAT registration and return the advisory decision.' An agent knows what the tool does, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling get_verification, so the 5-tier requirement of sibling differentiation is unmet.

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?

It discloses operational conditions ('Requires the verification.submit scope', IE-only CRO routing, payment fields only evaluated when payment checks are enabled), which is useful context. However, it never tells the agent when to pick this tool over get_verification, so it remains implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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