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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is mostly carried by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the request 'is kept with a reference number' — implying durable persistence and a returned identifier, but says nothing about duplicate submissions, retries, or how the reference number is later used.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the persistence outcome; no filler or redundancy. It is terse to the point of being undersized for a 10-parameter write tool, which is penalized under completeness rather than here.

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 complex, non-idempotent creation tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, the definition leaves major gaps: no explanation of what happens after submission, how to retrieve the reference number, whether the service slug is validated, or how the optional blocks (budget, timing, contact, geography) should be used. What is present is accurate but far from sufficient.

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 10 parameters and only 40% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented fields such as action, budget, timing, quantity, geography, and requested_fields — but it mentions none of them. The only parameter meaning added anywhere comes from the schema itself (need, slug, contact, specifications), so the description contributes essentially zero parameter guidance.

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 names a specific verb and object — 'Send a requirement to one of Colophon's services' — so an agent knows this creates a request against a service. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling tools (describe_proposition, list_propositions) or explain what a 'service' or 'requirement' means in this domain.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when this is preferable to describing or listing propositions, no prerequisites such as whether the service slug must already exist, and no exclusions. Only the bare action is implied by the name and title.

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