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

Adds context beyond the annotations: auth requirement (signed in as business owner), the fact some submissions go live immediately ('A new location... goes live at once') and to report the returned status verbatim, plus the once-only nature. These are meaningful operational traits not expressed by readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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?

Front-loads the audience restriction and the core action, then the sequencing and alternatives. Slightly dense with multiple caution clauses, but every sentence carries operational value rather than padding.

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 2-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, sequencing, alternatives, and the unusual 'goes live at once / report status as-is' behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call correctly appears missing; the lack of output schema is mitigated by the 'report the returned status' guidance.

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 both draft_id and business_id are already fully documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description notes the rejection case and the multi-business context, echoing the schema rather than adding new syntax or format meaning.

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 ('Submits the finished onboarding... for review') with the audience scoped ('Only for business owners signed in to Awning'). It explicitly contrasts with owner_update_* tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the precise call sequence ('Use it once, after owner_preview and the owner's yes'), a precondition ('Confirm with the owner first'), and an explicit alternative ('to change a live business use the owner_update_* tools instead'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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