Preview exactly what will be submitted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by detailing exactly what is rendered (every field, its value, origin, and the hash), which helps the agent understand the output and behavior beyond the annotation.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Renders the full submission packet') and includes essential details without extraneous words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with a readOnly annotation, the description is adequate but has gaps: it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., application must exist) or what the hash is for beyond 'to approve'. These omissions, combined with the lack of parameter explanation, prevent a higher score.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the applicationId parameter. Though the tool name suggests applicationId identifies the application, the description itself provides no explicit parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the low 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 renders the full submission packet including fields, values, sources, and hash. It distinguishes from siblings like preview_batch and approve_application by focusing on the individual application's packet and its approval hash.

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 phrase 'plus the packet hash to approve' indicates this is used in the approval flow, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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