agenta_verify_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether submission is idempotent, what happens on failure, what the merchant must do to be eligible, or how it relates to the resubmit path; only the downstream business outcome is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too thin for an 18-parameter submission tool, a shortfall better attributed to completeness than to verbosity.

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 an 18-parameter submission tool with zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical context unaddressed: whether all fields are truly optional, what triggers a resubmission instead, and what the caller gets back. It is not sufficient to invoke this tool correctly on first try.

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 100%, so every parameter (including the four enums and their allowed values) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submit business verification') and adds the business outcome ('so the merchant can accept live payments'), which helps an agent understand intent. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its close siblings agenta_verify_resubmit or agenta_verify_declaration, which are all in the same verification family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus agenta_verify_resubmit (e.g., first submission vs. after a rejection) or whether agenta_verify_declaration must be run first. The 'acceptDeclaration' parameter hints at a prerequisite tool, but the description never states it.

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