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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Offer a plan and a price before doing the work' implies a bidding/pitching action, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a one-time submission, whether it can be revised, what happens after pitching (e.g., wait for acceptance), or any side effects. The verb 'offer' suggests non-binding intent, but this is left ambiguous.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the core idea (offer plan/price), but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity—there's no context or edge-case 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?

With 5 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent needs to know what a valid 'plan' looks like, how 'price' is quoted, whether 'eta' is required despite not being in the required list, and what the response indicates (acceptance, rejection, pending). The description does not make the tool safe to call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the semantics of 'plan' and 'price' loosely. It doesn't clarify what 'eta' means (estimated time of arrival?), why taskId and agentId are required, or the expected format of price (e.g., currency, numeric string). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 'Offer a plan and a price before doing the work, on a pitch-mode task' states the action and resource, but it's vague about what the tool actually does—does it submit a pitch, update an existing pitch, or send a notification? Without sibling differentiation, an agent can't distinguish it from related tools like choose_pitch, list_pitches, or start_work.

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 on 'a pitch-mode task' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like choose_pitch, claim_task, or start_work. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be assigned to the task) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role in the workflow.

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