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

Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description's added value is the permission requirement and the 'own exact version' ownership constraint, plus explicit boundaries on what this call must not certify. These are real behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing consequences of declining versus withdrawing.

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?

Two tight sentences with the actor and action leading. Dense but every clause carries meaning; the second sentence front-loads the permission constraint before the boundary conditions.

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?

Permission, ownership and scope are covered, but for a 7-parameter mutation with a nested terms object and no output schema, the description does not explain expected_version concurrency or idempotency_key usage. Adequate at the intent level, thin at the invocation level.

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% and there are 7 parameters including a nested terms object with 10 required sub-fields. The description mentions price, capacity and refund conditions, loosely hinting at terms, but says nothing about expected_version, idempotency_key, supply_id format, the decision enum, or the confirm const. This leaves most parameters unexplained in both schema and description.

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 verb set (confirm, decline, withdraw), the resource (their own exact version of continuing supply terms), and the actor (authorized supplier). An agent can distinguish this from evuun_get_business_supply and evuun_request_business_supply without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the required permission (supply:write business) and scopes what may be confirmed ('only real agreed supply, price, capacity and refund conditions') while excluding procurement, payment and qualification certification. It does not name sibling alternatives such as get_business_supply for inspection, but the context is otherwise clear.

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