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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the parse-and-provenance behavior, that conflicting or unclear facts return as a single question, that unread words are preserved verbatim, and that nothing is committed downstream. That is substantial behavioral context; it only leaves out retry/idempotency semantics for turn_id, which live in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and free of filler, but it is delivered as one long multi-clause sentence in which the return behavior, the continuation rule, the safety caveat, and the alternative are all chained together. Splitting those into distinct sentences would make scanning easier without adding length.

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 non-read-only, non-idempotent capture tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what comes back (structured requirement, one clarifying question, unread words retained), how to continue a session, and when to use a sibling instead. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that the requirement object (id, token) is what continues an existing requirement across turns, which the schema states only tersely as 'The requirement to continue.' It does not explain utterance length limits or timezone handling, which the schema already covers.

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 ('give Commonstop the buyer's requirement... in their own words') and immediately names the transformation performed ('read into a structured requirement'), which makes it distinguishable from siblings like submit_request and edit_requirement. It also clarifies that corrections or additions are accepted, so the agent knows the tool is not limited to a single initial capture.

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?

Explicitly sets boundaries: 'Nothing is sent or ordered: send_requirement sends it when the buyer says so' tells the agent what this tool does NOT do and names the alternative. It also gives the inverse routing rule, 'When you already have the fields in structured form, use submit_request instead,' plus the continuation condition of passing the requirement id and token.

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