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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it rejects with a missingFields list if required fields are empty, never returns a pay_application_fee/409-unpaid response, moves the application to human review on success, and requires an agent token. This adds significant context beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then add important behavioral details and a sibling distinction. No wasted 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: error handling (missingFields), fee absence, state transition (human review), and auth requirement. It could possibly mention the success response format, but that is not critical given the simplicity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (applicationId) with a clear description. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting a completed Coworking Application for human review. It uses a specific verb (submit) and resource (Coworking Application), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the absence of an application fee, unlike submitStayApplication/submitExperienceApplication.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (for completed applications requiring human review) and contrasts with sibling submit tools by highlighting the fee difference. It also notes the token requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention saveCoworkingApplication as the alternative for drafts, though the distinction is implied.

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