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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description justifies this by stating it creates a pending review, not an immediate listing, and warns about rejection for derived contacts. It also discloses the human review step and idempotency behavior, providing rich context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose and immediate outcome stated first. It includes multiple key behavioral notes in a compact form without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids extraneous detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 params, human review, idempotency) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the review process, the 'pending_review' status, the relationship verification, the contact requirement, and the idempotent update behavior. This is enough for an agent to call correctly and set expectations.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates for several critical parameters: 'relationship' is explained (owner/agent/third party), 'external_ref' is explained (idempotency), and contact details (email, phone) are covered by the 'published' requirement. However, many other params (city, name, vertical, etc.) rely on the schema's brief descriptions, so the description adds value but isn't exhaustive.

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 clearly states the action (submit a business), the resource (NUM), and the key behavior (goes to human review, never immediate). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning its asynchronous nature and idempotency via external_ref, unlike get/list/search which are read-only and submit_promo which is for promotions.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (submit a business for review) and provides important exclusions: submissions with guessed contact details are rejected, contact must be published. It also clarifies idempotent behavior with external_ref, which guides proper usage. It implicitly differentiates from read-only siblings and the promo tool, though not explicitly naming them.

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