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

Annotations already cover read-only/mutation, idempotency, and destructiveness. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it states an authorization prerequisite ('Only for business owners signed in to Awning') and a social/safety requirement ('Confirm with the owner first'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: audience constraint, main action, and a required confirmation step. The key information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter submit action, the description covers who, when, what, and a required precondition. It does not explain return values or post-submission behavior, but with no output schema and straightforward semantics, this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 describes business_id well, and the description's phrase 'finished onboarding' hints at what draft_id refers to, but there is no explicit mapping or explanation of draft_id. With 50% schema coverage and no parameter details in the description, the meaning is adequate but not fully clarified.

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 names a specific verb ('Submits') and a clear resource ('the finished onboarding (or a corrected business after rejection)') for review. This clearly distinguishes the action from editing or setup operations, and the title reinforces the same intent.

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?

The description gives clear conditions: only for signed-in business owners, only after onboarding is finished or after a rejection correction, and only after confirming with the owner. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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