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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful nuance that the call does not dispatch anything ("Nothing is sent yet") and that a disclosure payload exists, but says nothing about side effects created by the start itself or what the caller should do next.

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 short clauses with the key constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second clause about data.disclosure is compressed to the point of ambiguity, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 state-changing start call with no output schema, the agent still lacks what the tool returns (an application handle? the disclosure object?) and how it relates to event_application_status and send_event_application. Annotations cover the mutation profile, but the workflow placement is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (slug, request_key) carry their own descriptions, including idempotency guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 ("Starts the application") and implicitly separates itself from send_event_application by noting nothing is sent yet. An agent can identify the operation, though the phrase "data.disclosure says who gets what" is opaque without further context.

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?

"Nothing is sent yet" implies this is a preparatory step preceding send_event_application, but no sibling is named and no explicit condition for choosing this over event_application_status or send_event_application is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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