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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it never reads or returns SSNs, identity documents, provider credentials, or KYC payloads; handoff URL access is restricted by membership role; it reads canonical server state and does not manufacture facts; it is idempotent; and no confirmation is required. This is strong, non-redundant transparency.

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?

The main use is front-loaded, but the description becomes bloated with generic boilerplate. 'Prerequisite: authenticated active organization access plus every prerequisite stated above' is vague and circular, and the 'Confirmation boundary' sentence lists many unrelated action categories, making the description longer than needed without adding tool-specific precision.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only names broad return categories without explaining their structure or how to interpret them. More importantly, it omits parameter semantics entirely, so an agent cannot confidently determine which identifiers to supply. The behavioral and authorization context is strong, but the input side of the tool is under-specified.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented companyId and applicationId parameters. It never explains whether one or both are needed, which ID is required for the bank-onboarding context, or how _corply_context should be used. The description is entirely about outputs and behaviors, not input semantics.

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 clearly names a specific verb-resource pair ('get bank onboarding status') and lists concrete return categories: durable Mercury prefill handoff, in-flight/reconciliation state, or direct Mercury fallback. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, though 'First tool for opening a company bank account' provides some separation from start_bank_onboarding and reconcile_bank_onboarding.

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 useful usage context: it is the first tool to use for opening a bank account and requires authenticated active organization access plus membership prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_status, start_bank_onboarding, or reconcile_bank_onboarding, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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