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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that no key is issued immediately, the application is reviewed, and the key is emailed to contact_email. It also discloses the invoicing model (GSTIN required, default 25% discount, monthly settlement). While it doesn't cover failure modes or review timelines, it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 description is a moderately sized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then explains key behaviors and usage restrictions. Every sentence contributes useful context, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the application flow, requirements, pricing model, and usage guidance. It lacks information about review timelines, rejection reasons, or post-approval steps beyond emailing the key, but given the complexity of an enterprise application and the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around why GSTIN is required and how contact_email is used, but these are largely restatements of the schema descriptions. It doesn't enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Apply for an enterprise (invoiced) account') and immediately distinguishes this from order creation by describing the target user: 'platforms printing at volume behind their own checkout.' It also contrasts with sibling tools like create_order by clarifying this is for account setup, not order placement.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage gate: 'Use this only when a human has asked to set up a business/enterprise print account.' It also describes when this tool is appropriate (volume printing, own checkout) and what it does differently from standard order tools (auto-confirm, no payment link, monthly settlement), guiding selection among siblings.

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