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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it lists what the tool does NOT do (no registration, inquiry, store connection, order creation) and warns against sending contact details or private customer 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the positive capability followed by the exclusions and privacy caution. No filler; each clause earns its place, though the privacy note could be folded more tightly.

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 and rich annotations, the description appropriately characterizes the return ('requirements, approval steps and registration link') and its boundaries. The main gap is that the channel parameter's role is never addressed, but for a simple two-param read tool this is close to complete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It enumerates the service kinds (sourcing, inspection, prep, fulfillment) which maps to the service enum, but omits 'storage' and says nothing about the channel parameter (amazon, shopify, etc.), leaving one of two enums entirely unexplained.

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 ('Return') and a well-scoped resource: the requirements, approval steps and registration link for a first sourcing/inspection/prep/fulfillment job. An agent can tell what it produces, though it does not name or distinguish itself from the siblings list_prepport_services and estimate_prepport_base_cost.

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 'first ... request' framing plus the explicit negative scope ('Does not register the customer, send an inquiry, connect a store or create an order') tells the agent when this is appropriate and steers it away from write-style siblings. It stops short of routing to an alternative when the task is not a first job.

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