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

Annotations already declare the write/safe/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral info: that it returns the updated application including rejected answers and the reason for rejection. That is valuable because there is no output schema. It omits auth/token requirements, but the annotation bar is met.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the content constraint and the return behavior. No filler.

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 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, answer-selection guidance, and return content, which is close to sufficient. The gap is the unaddressed token/application_id parameters and the submit-vs-save distinction.

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 coverage is 60%; the schema itself documents 'answers', 'submit', and 'notes', while 'token' and 'application_id' are undocumented. The description reinforces answer semantics ('only send confirmed, leave unknown out') but adds nothing about application_id, token, or the submit flag.

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 and resource: sending a person's answers to an application that Sam Alishahi started. It is clearly distinguishable from get_application and submit_quote_request, though it does not explicitly name siblings or contrast with them.

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 gives a content rule ('only send what the person told you or confirmed; leave unknown fields out') but says nothing about when to use this versus submit_quote_request or when the 'submit' flag should be set. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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