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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: if the partner rejects as incomplete, the reply indicates what is missing rather than failing opaquely. This goes beyond a generic 'submit' action. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosure, and it doesn't mention side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or what happens on success. It covers one aspect of error handling but leaves other behaviors undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: a one-line summary, a single behavioral sentence, and a trailing 'Free.' No fluff or repetition. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence. It earns its keep with minimal length.

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 the tool performs a mutation (submission) with no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect on success (e.g., a confirmation, status change) and any prerequisites (e.g., application must be complete, prior steps). It also omits whether this is a one-time action or if it can be called multiple times. The 'Free.' note is ambiguous and doesn't clarify behavioral context. The description is adequate for the error case but incomplete for the overall operation.

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?

The schema documents the single parameter auth_token with a clear description ('Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.'), so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how to use this parameter, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 states a specific action: submitting the completed application for review. It distinguishes from siblings like update_banking_application_details and upload_banking_document by its focus on final submission. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource (e.g., banking application) beyond the tool name, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_banking_application_details or get_banking_application. It implies submission after completion but doesn't state prerequisites, sequencing, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. The description offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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