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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the post-request flow: the seller responds with a price and ETA, and the buyer has 24 hours to accept. It also reveals that fixed-price listings reject the operation, which is important behavioral context. It could mention what the tool returns or whether duplicate requests are allowed, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by workflow constraints and a clear alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description explains the process well: scope filing, seller response with price/ETA, and buyer's 24-hour acceptance window. It also handles the fixed-price exclusion. The main gap is that it does not describe what the caller receives back, such as an request ID or status, but this is minor relative to the overall clarity.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that scope must conform to the listing's scope schema but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. requested_summary is not elaborated further, though its schema description is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "File a scope-of-work against a quote-mode service listing." It clearly differentiates this tool from the purchase path by noting fixed-price listings refuse this and directing to services_purchase. The buyer-initiated quote workflow is unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool: for quote-mode service listings where a scope-of-work must be filed. It also gives a when-not condition and an alternative: fixed-price listings refuse this, so use services_purchase. This is direct routing guidance for an agent.

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