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

Adds critical context beyond annotations: login required, approval gating, that PENDING does not mean the alliance is established, and what to do on failure. Annotations already cover safety profile, and the description enriches the workflow understanding appropriately.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: login requirement and prerequisite tool come first, followed by conditions, approval outcome, and retry guidance. Every clause adds necessary information.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the essential call path, prerequisites, and expected state transitions. The only gap is the unmentioned optional 'note' parameter, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that name, description, and at least two owned organizations are expected, which maps to the required parameters and the minItems constraint on organizationIds. It does not mention the optional 'note' parameter or numeric length constraints.

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 (alliance application) plus the approval lifecycle: application is reviewed first and only approval creates the alliance. It clearly distinguishes the submit step from the eventual creation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_alliance_organization.

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?

Explicitly says to first read get_my_alliance_application_state, confirms required conditions (name, description, at least two owned organizations), and gives failure guidance ('check state then retry'). Prerequisites and retry path are clear.

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