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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably well: it discloses that the request goes to a backlog, that a human responds with feasibility, price, and time, and crucially that nothing is ordered or charged (no side effects). It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or expected response latency.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the consequence, then the reassurance that nothing is committed. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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 submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential lifecycle (submitted to backlog, human responds) and the key safety fact (nothing ordered/charged). Minor gaps remain around how the response arrives or how to follow up, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and each of the six parameters is self-documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely gestures at content through the examples 'part, print run, design or a build', adding little beyond what the schema's 'what' field already explains.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: asking ce-net factories for a physical item (part, print run, design, build). It clearly distinguishes submission from the sibling request_status (which implies status-checking) even without naming it explicitly. It is clear but stops short of explicitly naming 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?

Usage is implied by 'It lands in the request backlog' and 'Nothing is ordered or charged by this call', which frames this as a non-committal inquiry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the request_status sibling for follow-up, and no prerequisites stated.

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