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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous behavior (immediate order ID and ceremony URL, later outcome), the attestation process, and billing only on delivery. It also notes the email option. This is a transparent account of side effects for a write operation, going well beyond a simple 'creates a request'.

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 a compact set of five sentences, each delivering essential information: the object, the verification process, the immediate return, the polling instruction, and the billing rule. It does not repeat schema details or include fluff, so it earns a 5 for structure.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the return value (order ID and ceremony URL), the asynchronous nature, the polling path, and cost implications. It also names the involved parties (register, signer, attorney-at-law), giving a complete picture of the operation without overwhelming the agent.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, including enums and patterns (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context tying subjectRole to the register statement and explains how subjectEmail alters delivery, but it does not substantially enrich the parameter definitions beyond schema. Thus a 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 opens with a specific verb ('Order') and a concrete resource ('QES-signed identification package'), and clarifies the subject (role-holder of a Lithuanian legal entity). It also distinguishes from sibling get_kyc_package by explicitly stating that this returns an order ID and ceremony URL, while outcomes are polled later. This clearly positions the tool as the creation counterpart.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Poll with get_kyc_package' after ordering, giving a clear next step. It outlines the asynchronous flow and the optional subjectEmail behavior that affects delivery, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not contrast with other siblings beyond the polling step, so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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