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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, while the description adds key consent semantics and that it does not self-submit. It still does not explain what state changes continuation causes or what the handoff outcome is.

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 English sentence front-loads the two branches, and the Korean text adds non-duplicative constraints such as no self-submission and consent handling. It is efficient, though the bilingual repetition makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 mutation-like workflow with no output schema, the description covers the critical consent and handoff behavior well. However, it leaves important parameter semantics and the actual continuation result unexplained.

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 only 20%, with just the phone parameter documented in the schema. The description explains the two mode values, but does not define journey_id, expected_journey_revision, review_id, or revision expectations.

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 action: continue a reviewed preview after user confirmation, or hand it off for web confirmation. It also explicitly says it does not submit on its own, which distinguishes it from submit_consultation_request, though the resource wording is slightly indirect.

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?

Explicitly branches on user consent: use confirm_and_continue after approval, or handoff when directing the user to web confirmation without approval. It also warns not to treat questions, edits, or silence as consent, which is strong when/when-not guidance.

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