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 does indicate that the application goes through identity and terms review, which implies a review workflow, but it does not disclose outcomes, required approvals, side effects, or what the caller should expect after submission.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and purpose economically, which is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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?

Given 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely underspecified. An agent cannot reliably know which parameters are required, what format they should take, or what happens after submission.

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 0% and the description adds no concrete meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain which fields are needed, how the const values relate to the referral-only model, or what values are expected for string parameters like contact_uri or commission_model.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Submit'), the resource ('supplier/referral partnership application'), and the purpose ('for identity and terms review'). It is specific enough to differentiate this from commission-mandate or offer-publishing siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as submit_commission_mandate or prepare_onboarding_proposal. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen or what prerequisites apply.

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