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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the first send mints the receipt token reused by request_status and offers, and a later send of a changed requirement records a revision of the same request rather than a new one. That first-send/revision lifecycle is exactly the statefulness an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its trigger, followed by lifecycle semantics and then a scope disclaimer. Every sentence does work. Minor cost: 'Name the revision the buyer saw' is terse to the point of ambiguity about where that value comes from.

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, nested-object write with no output schema, the description supplies the workflow semantics an agent needs: when to send, what gets created, what the token is reused for, and that no order is placed. The remaining gap is the contact and op_id parameters, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 57%, and the description compensates for the largest gap: the `revision` integer is undocumented in the schema, and 'Name the revision the buyer saw' tells the agent what value to supply. It also reinforces that `token` doubles as the receipt token. It says nothing about `op_id` or the nested `contact` object, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Send the requirement to Colophon') and immediately frames the trigger condition ('once the buyer says to'). It distinguishes the first send (records the request) from a later send (records a revision), which meaningfully separates it from edit_requirement. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, which keeps it 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?

Timing guidance is explicit ('once the buyer says to'), and the third sentence rules out a likely misconception by stating 'This orders nothing: an offer comes later and is accepted separately on its exact terms'. What is missing is a direct pointer to edit_requirement for changing a requirement without sending it, so the agent must infer that alternative.

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