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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description's phrase 'Save demand' indicates this creates a persistent record (a write operation), which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, the description doesn't disclose whether this initiates an actual access-request workflow, what happens after submission, or any auth/prerequisite requirements. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the marginal value added by the description is modest.

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?

A single concise sentence that conveys context (post-preview) and key semantics (save demand, user goal, preview action). No wasted words. It's appropriately brief, though it could front-load more of the 'what it does' nature slightly better.

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 tool has 7 parameters with only 43% schema description coverage, and it's a write/mutation operation. The description is quite thin for a tool with this complexity. There's an output schema, which reduces the need to describe return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a save/request operation with 7 parameters including optional contact/org/volume fields, a bit more context about the workflow would strengthen completeness. It's minimally adequate but not rich.

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 43%, meaning 3 of 7 parameters (entry_id, action, use_case) have descriptions in the schema; the other 4 (inputs, contact, organization, expected_volume) have partial descriptions. The description adds context by framing that it captures 'the user goal and the preview action' — which maps to use_case and action. But it doesn't elaborate on contact, organization, expected_volume, or inputs beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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 says 'Save demand for a catalog entry after a preview, with the user goal and the preview action.' It identifies a specific verb+resource (save demand for catalog entry) and names key context (after a preview), but doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like account_request_upgrade or catalog_preview. It's clear enough but lacks the sharpness to differentiate from alternatives.

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 implies usage happens 'after a preview', which gives some temporal context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, how it relates to sibling tools (e.g., catalog_preview, catalog_describe, account_request_upgrade), or what the workflow sequence is. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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