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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false/idempotent=true, but the description adds substantial context: free of charge, the legal POA requirement, what each method returns (signingUrl), the renewalRequired signal when the LEI expires within two months, and explicit idempotency behavior ('Calling again ... returns the transfer already started'). This goes well beyond structured data.

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?

Purpose and the call-before instruction are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place given a 9-parameter, branching flow. The semicolon-dense enumeration of POA methods is information-rich rather than padded, though it is a long single block that could be tightened slightly.

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 compensates by naming the meaningful return signals (signingUrl, renewalRequired, already-started state) and the renewal interplay. For a 9-param mutation with branching flows it gives the agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics: poaMethod values, and which optional params apply per method (signerRole for 'sign', signerEmail/name/position for 'email') plus the user-default fallbacks. That is meaningful routing logic beyond the flat schema, though it still defers to the schema for types/formats.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Starts the transfer of an LEI ... to Global FinReg') and scopes it to the user's account. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_lei_registration and create_renewal_order, and it flags the free-of-charge nature and the POA prerequisite up front.

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 instructs the agent to ask the user about poaMethod before calling, then enumerates the three options with the condition that selects each ('sign' if the user is a director/board member, 'email' to delegate, 'download' to print-and-upload). It also names the follow-up tool upload_signed_transfer_poa for the download path and warns about the renewal case.

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