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

Beyond the idempotentHint=true annotation, the description discloses that changes are staged for separate human review (not applied immediately), that certain field types are excluded, and that the same requestId retrieves the saved result. This meaningfully extends the annotation coverage with no contradiction.

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, each earning its place: core purpose, field exclusions, and workflow warning. The most important behavioral constraint (not submitting a new ID after uncertainty) is included without bloat.

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. The description covers the unusual aspects of this tool — the review staging and idempotent retrieval pattern — making the call semantics clear. The main omission is what happens after human review (approval outcome, timing of effect), but the workflow-critical information is present.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies the requestId retry semantics and negatively scopes the profile (no email, passwords, receiving wallets). However, none of the six profile sub-fields (city, name, location, phone, legalTradeName, registeredAddress) are explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a real gap.

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 ('Prepare a merchant profile change') and a distinct process ('for separate human review of before/after values'). This clearly differentiates it from a direct update or submission tool, and the field exclusions ('No email, passwords or receiving wallets') further pin down its scope.

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?

The workflow guidance is clear and actionable: reuse the same requestId and profile to retrieve the saved result, and do not auto-submit a new ID after an uncertain response. It provides clear context on how to use the tool correctly, though it never names sibling alternatives or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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