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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default attachment-copy behavior and the override rule, and that the run snapshots the latest accepted spec/checks/price, but it says nothing about idempotency behavior on repeated keys, authentication needs, or the funding timing consequences of posting.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the attachment caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% parameter coverage, this is thin. An agent still cannot tell what happens on duplicate idempotency keys, whether prior runs' state is affected, or what the call returns on success.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 params documented), and the description's only parameter detail (carry_attachment_ids default) merely restates what the schema already says. agent_key, bounty_id, and especially idempotency_key — behaviorally important for a posting operation — are unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('post a new run of an accepted saved contract') and clarifies what the new run inherits (latest accepted spec, checks, price). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely named procurement_contract_run or contract_recovery.

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?

Usage is implied: this is for re-running an existing accepted contract rather than posting a fresh one. The precedent condition ('accepted saved contract') is stated, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as procurement_contract_run or bounty_post.

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