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

Annotations already declare the write, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world profile. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no email, SMS, or phone call is sent, so an agent knows the counterparty is not notified, and the request does not constitute approval. It doesn't say what happens on an idempotency-key replay or what the response contains.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and its constraint front-loaded and the negative guarantees following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the definition covers intent and side effects but leaves gaps: no return value description (e.g. whether a supply request ID or status is returned) and no idempotency-key usage guidance.

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 must carry the burden. It only hints at supplier_public_id semantics ("existing verified EVUUN owner public ID"); title, requirements, and idempotency_key — including the key's pattern and replay behavior — are entirely 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 and resource: "Save one in-app supply request to an existing verified EVUUN owner public ID." The closing clause ("does not approve supply for the other party") implicitly separates it from evuun_decide_business_supply, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear precondition — the target must be an existing verified EVUUN owner with supply:write business permission — and an explicit exclusion: it is not an approval step. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. evuun_decide_business_supply) for that follow-up action.

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