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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) by disclosing failure behavior (missingFields list), a notable negative behavior it does NOT exhibit (no fee/409-unpaid response, unlike siblings), the post-success state transition to human review, and the required auth token.

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?

Front-loads the core action and outcome, then adds failure and fee context. Four compact sentences with no filler, though the fee/409 comparison is slightly tangential to selecting the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing rejection payloads, the absence of a payment flow, the resulting review state, and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents applicationId. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the parameter, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (submit) and resource (Coworking Application) and names the sibling submissions it differs from (submitStayApplication/submitExperienceApplication). An agent can distinguish it from saveCoworkingApplication and createCoworkingApplication without opening schemas.

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?

Clarifies the context (an application that must be completed, moving to human review) and contrasts behavior with sibling submit tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus saveCoworkingApplication or createCoworkingApplication, leaving the submit-vs-save selection to inference.

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