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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint/destructiveHint/readOnlyHint), the description adds real behavioral context: preconditions (email-verified draft, explicit customer confirmation), dedup semantics ('Existing inquiries are reused'), and an irreversible outcome ('Submitted requests cannot switch back'). It does not mention auth/expiry of the session token or failure modes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and state transition, with no filler. The phrase 'using its current version' is slightly cryptic about what 'version' refers to, a minor clarity cost rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the preconditions and irreversibility are covered. However, for a four-parameter, fully-required mutation with zero schema descriptions, the auth/session parameter and the idempotency key still have no explanatory home.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It glosses two of four params — 'using its current version' (expectedVersion) and 'explicit customer confirmation' (confirmed) — but leaves idempotencyKey and sessionToken entirely unaddressed; idempotency is at least implied by the annotations.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Activate the email-verified draft as a viewing inquiry'), not a restatement of the tool name. The state transition (draft -> inquiry) is clear and the note about submitted requests clarifies the lifecycle boundary. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to contrast against, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Usage is only implied: the draft must be email-verified and the customer must explicitly confirm, and 'submitted requests cannot switch back to an inquiry' is a when-not condition. No alternatives are named (e.g., when to prefer a viewing request or an application submit path), so the agent must infer the routing.

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