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

Annotations only say non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world; the description adds real value by enumerating the negative side effects: it never publishes, contacts providers, forms a contract, or moves money, and it names the control requirement for the later publish step. The remaining gap is that it does not address duplicate-draft behavior or validation failures, which matters for a non-idempotent create.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the boundary statements following. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

Output schema existence relieves the description of explaining return values, and annotations plus the description cover the mutation safety profile. But for a 9-parameter draft-creation tool with zero schema descriptions, the absence of any field-level guidance leaves the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

There are 9 parameters with 6 required and 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full explanatory burden — yet it names no field at all. An agent must infer meaning from bare names like 'timing', 'budgetText', 'requiredSkills', and 'problem' and gets no hint about which fields drive matching or what content belongs in each.

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 ('Create a private draft request') and immediately scopes it as private/non-published, which separates it from public-facing actions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from creation-adjacent siblings such as create_opportunity_workspace, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the usage context — you draft here, an owner publishes later after website control and review of public fields — which is useful lifecycle guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like create_opportunity_workspace, and gives no prerequisites for calling it.

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