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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the stateful, multi-turn interview loop and the possible outcomes (follow-up question, approval, decline). It also notes the response carries a status and an access secret needed to continue, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens to abandoned/duplicate applications.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the interaction outcome. No filler or repetition of the title or annotations.

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 7-param, zero-required, no-output-schema tool, it explains the call flow and the returned status/secret, which covers the biggest unknowns. It leaves gaps on how the access secret is subsequently used and on the undocumented parameters.

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 description coverage is only 43% (3 of 7 params), so the description is expected to compensate, but it only gestures at the free-text store description. country, website, vertical, and company_name receive no meaning, format, or optionality guidance in either place.

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 and resource (start a merchant/advertiser onboarding application) and immediately describes the interaction model (automated evaluator responds with question/approval/decline). This clearly distinguishes it from the read/discovery siblings like list_programs and get_product_feed.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to begin onboarding a new merchant and to drive the interview via free-text. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do for an existing in-progress application, and no routing away from alternatives such as request_tracked_links.

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