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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing inheritance behavior (accept policy, check pack, reference rows, attachments) and by spelling out the two post-acceptance paths: poster_review requires an active member to judge, auto_on_gate_pass auto-accepts the first final passing every blocking check. It does not explain idempotency handling, which is notable given idempotency_key is required while idempotentHint is false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its defining constraint before the policy details. Dense and largely waste-free, though the inheritance sentence could be trimmed if it were less load-bearing.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and seven required-ish parameters gets a good account of policy behavior, but nothing about what a run returns, what the run identifier looks like, or how failures/replays under the idempotency key behave. Enough to decide to call it, not enough to predict the result.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema and 3 is the correct baseline. The description adds no parameter-level detail and even leaves a mild ambiguity: it says runs post at "the organization's fixed amount" while amount_usd is a required 10-10000 input.

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 run") plus the key scoping trait ("at the organization's fixed amount without auto-routing"), which separates it from an auto-routing counterpart. It does not name any sibling tool (e.g. contract_rerun, procurement_contract_assign), so the differentiation is by behavior rather than by tool name.

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 phrase "without auto-routing" implies the usage condition versus the routed path, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. The accept-policy modes are described, yet nothing tells the agent under which circumstances to prefer this tool over the nearby contract tools.

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