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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the request is asynchronous (seller responds later) and that fixed-price listings reject it, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the request is durable, whether it can be withdrawn, or any authorization requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every clause earns its place: it states the purpose, the schema requirement, the follow-up flow, and the alternative for fixed-price listings. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns or how to track the request. It mentions the next step (services_accept_quote) but does not clarify the immediate result (e.g., request ID, status). The flow is well-explained, but the omission of return value leaves a minor gap for an agent that needs to handle the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that scope must conform to the listing's scope_schema (already in the schema) and adds no new parameter-specific details. It does not deepen understanding of `requested_summary` or `service_listing_id` beyond their schema descriptions.

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 verb ('File a scope-of-work') and the specific resource ('quote-mode service listing'), and distinguishes it from the fixed-price alternative by name. It also correctly identifies the sibling services_accept_quote as the next step, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 (quote-mode listings) and when not to (fixed-price listings, directing to services_purchase). It also explains the workflow: seller responds with price + ETA, buyer has 24h to accept via services_accept_quote, giving clear routing and usage context.

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