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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations, the description discloses the shape of the return (tailored checklist, a 'never paste' list, and an application link) and the abstraction level ('describes documents by type only'). It also adds a security boundary — do not send card numbers, government IDs, or bank details — which annotations alone would not convey.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, and the sentences move efficiently from purpose to inputs to outputs to exclusions to safety. The enumeration of input fields and enum values duplicates the schema slightly, which is minor waste but not a structural problem.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover selection guidance and boundaries, and it does both. Nothing an agent needs in order to choose and call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three inputs and the enum. The description restates the same inputs and enumerates the processing-history values, adding no new semantic detail such as formatting, casing, or how values change the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (build a document checklist) and pins the scope to 'what documents to prepare before applying for a high-risk merchant account,' which cleanly separates it from siblings like build_shutdown_checklist, check_policy_readiness, or start_application.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when a merchant asks what documents to prepare...') plus clear exclusions ('Does not collect or review documents, approve an account, or quote fees'), which bounds the tool well. It does not name an alternative tool to route to when the request falls outside that scope, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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