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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the two behaviors an agent most needs: files never pass through the agent, and each verdict arrives later as a system event. That correctly frames the call as an asynchronous request to a human rather than a synchronous data fetch, which complements the non-readonly, non-idempotent hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the default/override semantics, then the async behavior note. The parenthetical document list is dense but earns its place by mapping to the enum; a slightly tighter phrasing of the example would remove the only fat.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains that results arrive out-of-band as system events, so nothing is missing about return values. Only minor gaps remain: what business_id refers to and what the agent should do after the request is shown.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for document_types: the default (all missing/failed) versus explicit re-request semantics and typical reasons for each. The enum values (means_of_id, supporting_doc) are referred to loosely as 'NIN slip' and 'supporting document', and business_id is never explained, leaving a small mapping 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?

States a concrete action (show an Upload button to request documents for a registration) and enumerates exactly which document kinds are involved. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_cac_documents or recheck_documents, since this one solicits new uploads from the person.

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 distinguishes the two calling modes: omit document_types to request everything still missing or failed, or name specific types to re-request them (with a CAC-query example). It stops short of naming siblings such as recheck_documents, so the agent must infer when to re-verify rather than re-request.

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