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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that the auditor replies directly to the requester's email (not through this server), that the reply cannot be fabricated by the issuer, that the response returns verificationCode and expectedSenderDomain, and that it may take business days or not be answered. This is rich behavioral context for an asynchronous, externally dependent operation.

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 moderately long but front-loaded with the core action and every sentence adds functional detail (flow, verification steps, caveats). The Korean translation adds redundancy but serves a bilingual audience; overall it is structured logically and efficiently.

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 explains the return values (verificationCode, expectedSenderDomain) and how to use them for verification against get_attestation. It also covers time expectations and the 'call once per report' constraint. For a single-parameter tool, this is fully 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?

The schema covers ownerEmail with a Korean description, but the tool description adds meaningful context: it clarifies the email is the requester's address and that the auditor replies directly to it, explaining the trust model beyond the schema's format. This adds value beyond the schema's baseline coverage.

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 tool's action: 'ask the independent auditor to confirm the reserve report by email' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_attestation, get_reserve) by being a request for human verification rather than a retrieval, making its 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 gives explicit usage guidance: ask the user for their email before calling, call once per report, and warns that the operation may take business days or go unanswered. It references get_attestation for verification steps, implying when this tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it directly with siblings.

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