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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the 'repeated calls cannot create duplicate leads' sentence largely restates idempotentHint. The description does add genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: a precondition (buyer approval of the review page) and a rejection rule for unconfirmed drafts. It still leaves the read-vs-write ambiguity unresolved.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the gating condition; nothing is padded. Minor loss because the idempotency sentence partially duplicates the annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the precondition and rejection path. It is still thin for a 3-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage: parameter meaning and auth/accessToken expectations are absent.

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 0% and the description names none of the three required parameters (id, revision, accessToken). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it adds no meaning about what 'revision' controls or why an accessToken is required.

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 leading verb/resource pair 'Retrieve the submission receipt' is specific, but it sits awkwardly against the tool name 'submit_inquiry', leaving the agent unsure whether this reads or writes. No sibling tool (get_inquiry_status, prepare_inquiry) is named to disambiguate the flow position.

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?

A use condition is implied ('after the buyer has approved the review page') and a failure condition is stated ('an unconfirmed draft is rejected'), which is more than most tools offer. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance relative to prepare_inquiry or get_inquiry_status.

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