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

Annotations confirm a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context: the taxpayer number arrives only via a personal secure browser link, Ops reviews and mails the form, and recording a submission never claims IRS acceptance. The trailing 'Confirmation boundary' sentence is generic boilerplate (it refers to 'this read'), which is a slight mismatch for a write tool but not a direct contradiction.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is bloated with template text (Canonicality, Idempotency, Confirmation boundary) that appears copy-pasted and partly irrelevant to this specific tool, so many sentences do not earn their place.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the operational flow, channel constraints, and prerequisites well, but omits parameter-level meaning for key fields and return behavior, so it is only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain kind semantics (responsible_party vs address), the postal/Google-listing constraint on mailing and business-location addresses, and idempotency-key retry behavior, but it never clarifies changedOn, officerPersonId, or newResponsiblePersonId, leaving several of the 10 parameters undocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: starting a Form 8822-B change of business address or EIN responsible party for a Corply-formed Delaware corporation. It is clear and scoped, though it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as list_business_irs_changes or resend_taxpayer_link.

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?

It gives prerequisites (authenticated active company access plus stated prerequisites) and address reuse guidance, which frames when this is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer alternatives or how it differs from the listing/resend siblings, leaving usage to inference.

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