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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important behavior: the receipt/result does not verify sender identity, authenticity, or eligibility, and review is 'fail-closed'. That is valuable trust context, but nothing is said about mutation effects, persistence, idempotency, or auth requirements for the call itself.

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, action first, caveat second — front-loaded and free of filler. The dense domain jargon ('fail-closed formal review') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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?

A four-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage gets a very thin description. The safety caveat is useful, but an agent is left without enough to know what to pass in or what to expect back.

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?

All four parameters (match, request, evidence, response) have 0% schema coverage and nested objects, so the description must compensate. It loosely gestures at 'response', 'request', and 'evidence' in prose but adds no structure, format, or expected-shape detail for any parameter.

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?

Names specific operations (correlate a supplier response, map evidence, run formal review) against a concrete resource, so the tool's function is legible. It is distinguishable from prepare-side siblings like prepare_supplier_eligibility_request, though it never names an alternative 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?

The phrase 'a supplier response with a prepared request' implies the calling context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no sequencing guidance relative to siblings (e.g. intake_supplier_formal_eligibility), and no prerequisites stated.

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