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

The description goes beyond the annotations by spelling out exactly what happens on re-submission: the profile is overwritten, the contact record is keyed on email, and any previously generated framework for the session is discarded. It discloses the absence of authentication and that no charge occurs at this step, which is exactly the extra context an agent needs.

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 description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: scale, workflow, side effects, rendering, return contract, and usage caveats. It is not padded, no redundant repetition of the schema, and all critical caveats are front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explicitly says what is returned ('session ID and status profile_saved') and what is not returned ('does not return the framework'), leaving no ambiguity. It also covers resubmittability, overwriting, contact keying, and routing to the sibling retrieval tool, so the agent has all context needed to call and post-process correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 67%, the description adds meaning that the schema alone does not convey. It explains that answers are question options from start_australian_ai_governance_framework, highlights the $3 million turnover threshold, and clarifies that contact.organisation becomes the document's 'Prepared for' heading so it should be the full display name.

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 verb-resource pair ('Submits the organisation profile and contact details') and unmistakably ties it to the Australian AI governance framework. It further disambiguates the deliverable by saying it returns only a profile_saved status and session ID, not the framework, which distinguishes it from get_ai_governance_framework.

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 explicitly says the session ID comes from start_australian_ai_governance_framework, and that the framework is later retrieved with get_ai_governance_framework. It also gives clear behavioural context: answers should reflect actual circumstances, especially turnover, and re-submission overwrites rather than duplicates.

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