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

Annotations declare write/openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: manual review, email delivery of login on approval, and a returned reference. It does not warn that re-calling creates duplicate applications (relevant given non-idempotent), but the behavioral disclosure is otherwise rich.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by consent constraint, review process, and return note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 14-param application tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: consent, human review, email flow, and return value. Slightly more on duplicate-submission behavior would make it 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 100%, so all 14 parameters are already documented. The description adds no field-level detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., formats for geos, traffic_types), so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Send a publisher (affiliate) application to RottenAds.' The '(affiliate)' clarification and 'publisher' framing implicitly separate it from apply_as_advertiser, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operating context: 'Use the applicant's real details and only with their consent' plus notice of human review. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (apply_as_advertiser) or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong but not full routing guidance.

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