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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by explaining the specific consequences: it files an application with the NTS, creates a receipt record (cvaId + rcatNo), and is irreversible with no cancel. It also discloses the preview/confirm behavior. This adds valuable behavioral context that annotations do not convey, and it does not contradict the destructive hint.

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 description is compact and well-ordered: it front-loads the prerequisite, states the purpose, then delivers the critical warning and step-by-step usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex action with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: prerequisite login, irreversibility, and the confirm workflow. It doesn't mention alternatives like reissue or auto-apply, but the name and the clear application flow are sufficient for an agent to proceed correctly. Slight gap in not differentiating from sibling certificate apply tools, but not critical.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add new meaning for most parameters; it repeats the confirm guidance already in the schema ('Omit it on the first call...'). Since the schema already provides comprehensive parameter descriptions, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Apply for Business Registration Certificate') with a specific resource, and the name itself distinguishes it from the reissue sibling. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like apply_auto or reissue, but the verb 'Apply' and the certificate type make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit prerequisites (prior login with same account_link_id) and a clear two-step workflow: call without confirm to preview, show to user, then retry with confirm=true. It also issues a strong directive ('Never set confirm=true on your own') and notes the lack of a cancel action, which fully guides an agent on when and how to invoke it.

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