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

Far beyond what the annotations convey: current unavailability and the exact error returned, the prerequisites (durable reservation, unknown-outcome reconciliation across dashboard/checkout/cron), the fact that nothing is filed, the reconciliation requirement after rejection, an explicit prohibition on sending tax identifiers, credentials, file contents or legal attestations, and the required owner membership plus billing:write scope. This is unusually rich behavioral and safety disclosure for a mutation-shaped tool.

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 critical fact (unavailable, returns submission_unavailable, no filing) is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct operational guidance rather than filler. The block is dense but every sentence earns its place, with only mild redundancy between the 'do not retry' and 'do not start a new paid registration' instructions.

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 mutation-shaped tool with annotations present and an output schema available (so return values need not be explained), the description covers availability, prerequisites, authorization scope, reconciliation semantics and data-handling prohibitions. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is left entirely to the schema despite 0% description coverage.

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 0% and the description never mentions business_id, expected_updated_at or confirm_submission. The optimistic-concurrency intent of expected_updated_at and the meaning of confirm_submission must be inferred entirely from parameter names, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (submit text registration) and immediately qualifies it as a reserved contract whose execution is currently unavailable, returning submission_unavailable without filing. It also distinguishes itself from get_text_registration, save_text_registration_details and start_text_registration_checkout by naming them. The only reason it isn't a 5 is that the effective behavior (a no-op stub) makes the 'what it does' statement unusual, though it is stated honestly.

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?

Explicit routing: use get_text_registration and save_text_registration_details for preparation/status, do not retry through another entry point, and do not start a new paid registration. It also states that saving corrected details does not resubmit rejected provider objects and that operator reconciliation is required. When-to-use, when-not-to-use and alternatives are all present.

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