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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write, so the baseline is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: the receipt token is shared with request_status and offers, and a repeat send does not duplicate but creates a revision of the same request. However, it says nothing about failure modes, authentication, or what the immediate response contains.

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 action and precondition, and each carries distinct information about first send, revisions, and the non-order guarantee. The parenthetical is dense but useful rather than redundant.

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 7-parameter write tool with a nested contact object and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics of sending, token reuse, and revisioning. It does not explain the contact requirement or the op_id idempotency key, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With schema coverage at 57%, the description still earns credit by explaining that the token is also the receipt token used by request_status and offers, and that 'revision' must be the revision the buyer actually saw. It leaves several parameters (op_id, contact, action, slug) to the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Send the requirement to Bayline') and then explains the two distinct outcomes: a first send that records the request and a later send that records a revision of the same request. It also pre-empts confusion with siblings by stating 'This orders nothing: an offer comes later and is accepted separately', which separates it from submit_purchase_order and accept_offer.

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 precondition 'once the buyer says to' gives a clear trigger for when to call, and the first-send vs later-send distinction tells the agent which case applies. It stops short of naming alternatives such as edit_requirement or submit_request, so the routing 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.