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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description's job is to add context – and it does: a new location of a known live business goes live immediately without review, the returned status must be reported faithfully, and the owner must be confirmed first. Failure modes and error behavior are not covered, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the audience/authentication constraint, then purpose, then the notable behavioral caveat. No filler, though the go-live sentence is slightly dense.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers who can call it, what it does, the divergent outcome for known-owner new locations, and the confirmation requirement. The undocumented draft_id and absence of error handling are the only gaps.

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 50% – business_id is documented in the schema while draft_id is undocumented. The description never mentions either parameter, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema; it only implicitly references the draft via 'the finished onboarding'.

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 (submits) and resource (finished onboarding / corrected business after rejection) for review. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like owner_setup (build the profile) and owner_status (read status), so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Provides the precondition (business owners signed in to Awning) and two qualifying situations – finished onboarding and corrected business after rejection. It doesn't name a sibling alternative to use instead in other cases, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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