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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds what the annotations cannot: what is NOT returned (no file bytes, storage paths, signed URLs or tax identifiers) and the admin/auth requirement plus the rejected-then-correctable lifecycle. The prompt-injection warning about reviewer notes is a genuinely valuable behavioral caveat.

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 core purpose, then tacked-on qualifiers and cautions in short sentences. Dense and mostly earning its place, though the stacking of negations and the reviewer-notes warning makes it read more like a checklist than a tight brief.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated; the description instead covers scope, states, exclusions and the surrounding upload workflow, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the business_id parameter's meaning remains uncovered.

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% for the single business_id parameter, so the description would need to carry the load. It implies tenant scoping with 'tenant-scoped', which loosely maps to business_id, but never defines the parameter, its format, or where the value comes from.

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 (Read) and resource (tenant-scoped business-verification document references) plus the review states it surfaces. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby siblings by noting internal staff verification is separate from carrier registration, so an agent can tell it apart from get_text_registration and get_trust_level.

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 concrete operational context: upload happens on the secure owner page as an admin, and rejected documents can be corrected and re-uploaded. It differentiates from carrier registration, but does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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