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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: signatures are never filled, nothing is submitted to any agency, generation is refused if the revision changed, and it returns an artifact_id. These are side-effect and safety facts an agent cannot derive from readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false alone.

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 dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, precondition, side-effect boundary, return/next-step), with the core action and the confirmation gate both front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return value (artifact_id) and the follow-up tool, and covers the mutation's boundaries (no signatures, no submission, revision mismatch refusal). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented (baseline 3). The description nonetheless enriches the semantics meaningfully by pinning reviewed_revision to 'the exact revision reviewed' and clarifying that question completion is not the same as confirmation, which goes beyond the schema's terse 'Must be true' text.

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+resource+output ('Fill the official PDF in its original layout') and its input source ('from a validated draft'), which cleanly separates it from validate_application (which only checks) and get_pdf_download (which only yields a link). An agent can tell what this produces without reading the schema.

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 precondition — call only after showing every answer and getting explicit confirmation of that exact revision — plus an explicit non-condition ('finishing the questions is not confirmation'). It also routes the agent forward by naming get_pdf_download as the next step for obtaining a link.

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