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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the run inherits the contract's accept policy, check pack, reference rows, and attachments, and explains the poster_review and auto_on_gate_pass acceptance modes. However, it does not cover authentication requirements, idempotency behavior, or whether posting a run is financially irreversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence contributes new information about inheritance and acceptance modes. It is appropriately sized and avoids repetition, though the third sentence could be tightened.

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?

The description is adequate for a tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, but it leaves gaps for a mutation-style operation with no annotations. It does not explain the monetary or irreversible consequences of posting a run, nor does it clarify the role of agent_key for authorization beyond the schema's minimal note.

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 seven parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema; its mention of 'organization's fixed amount' loosely aligns with amount_usd but provides no extra syntax or constraint detail.

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 and resource: 'Post a run at the organization's fixed amount without auto-routing.' It clearly distinguishes this from auto-routing behavior, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings such as contract_rerun or procurement_contract_assign.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains behavior and acceptance modes but does not say in what situations an agent should select this tool over contract_rerun, procurement_contract_assign, or other related tools.

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