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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the full post-submit lifecycle: an email confirmation link, self-service completion of details, human verification of evidence by two team members, and that no buyer request is sent until that passes. It also states cost (free) and the non-guarantee of orders, which is exactly the kind of expectation-setting an agent cannot infer from structured fields. This is consistent with idempotentHint=false since each call creates a distinct pending application.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with audience then constraint then process then commercial terms. Every sentence supplies a distinct fact — eligibility, restriction, verification flow, cost/no-guarantee — with no repetition of the schema or title.

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 13-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: what triggers verification, that nothing is dispatched pre-approval, and that the service is free. Minor gaps remain — no mention of what the applicant sees on success, expected verification turnaround, or whether a rejected company may reapply.

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 54%, so roughly half the 13 parameters are undocumented. The description reinforces the intent of business_email ('real business email', company's own) and implies the type categories and products_or_services content, but adds nothing for legal_name, registration_number, registry_url, contact_person, agent_name, phone, or website. Baseline 3 is the right landing point given the schema carries most of the weight and the description only nudges a few fields.

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 names the resource (a supplier/logistics company application) and enumerates the exact company types covered: factory, sourcing agent, freight forwarder, clearing agent, insurer, inspection company. It also states the outcome (receiving matching buyer requests), which distinguishes it from the buyer-side submit_sourcing_request sibling. It falls short of a 5 only because the action verb itself (register/apply) is carried by the title rather than restated cleanly in the body.

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 an explicit eligibility restriction — 'Use only for a company you represent, with its real business email' — which tells the agent when this tool is invalid, not just valid. It does not name any alternative tool for the opposite case (a buyer seeking suppliers), so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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