Prepare an Agent Readiness declaration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: it resolves only exact Sourcey Entity identity, never assigns a grade, never treats startup credits/deals as service readiness, and returns precise missing fields when the service graph is incomplete. That is genuine context beyond annotations. It does not, however, describe idempotency or auth requirements independently.

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 single sentence is overloaded, packed with a run-on enumeration ('one vendor product, API, SaaS service, authentication path, payment path, provisioning flow, operating interface, recovery flow, and exact agent standard') and multiple negatives before the core purpose is reachable. It is not front-loaded and not skim-friendly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. However, for a 16-param, 11-required, deeply nested declaration tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves major gaps about parameter meaning and validation rules that an agent would need.

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%, so the description must compensate — but it names no actual parameters. It does allude to key concepts (identity resolution, participants, endpoints, interfaces, relations, offer_relations, source URIs) that map loosely to the 16-param schema, giving partial orientation, but it adds little concrete semantic detail for any specific field.

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 (Prepare) and resource (the canonical declaration for an Agent Readiness assessment), and enumerates the surface types covered. But it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_readiness, search_readiness, or compare_offers — an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should call this instead of another readiness tool.

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 implies usage via 'ready to submit through POST /v1/submissions as product agent_readiness' and lists what the declaration covers, but never states when to use this tool versus get_readiness/search_readiness/compare_offers. No explicit exclusions or alternative-tool routing is provided.

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