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

Annotations already declare openWorld=true, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the application is reviewed by a human team and answered by email, and it returns a reference — a submission/human-review flow the annotations don't convey. It omits the non-idempotency implication (duplicate submissions), which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then consent constraint, then outcome. Nothing is wasted and no repetition of schema content.

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 16-parameter, human-reviewed submission tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, consent requirement, review channel and return value ('a reference'). It could say more about what happens after submission or duplicate applications, but nothing an agent needs in order 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 description coverage is 100% across all 16 parameters, so the schema already carries parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description only adds marginal context by listing the accepted payout models (CPL/CPA/CPS/RevShare), which loosely maps to the 'payout' field.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Send an advertiser application') and defines the object as 'an offer you want publishers to promote on a CPL/CPA/CPS/RevShare basis', which makes the advertiser-side role unambiguous against apply_as_publisher. It never names the sibling or an alternative though, so differentiation is implicit in the naming rather than explicit in the text.

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 process guidance ('Use the applicant's real details and only with their consent', 'Our team answers by email') but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or routing to apply_as_publisher or get_offer. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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