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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this writes and that repeats create new records. The description usefully adds that the request is persisted ('kept') and that a reference number identifies it, partially compensating for the missing output schema. It says nothing about permissions, turnaround, or what happens to duplicate submissions.

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 with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 10-parameter, nested-object submission tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is thin: it never explains how to discover a valid slug, how 'specifications' should be populated, or how the returned reference number is used later. The one privacy-relevant fact in the definition (contact details stored separately and deleted after 180 days) sits only in the schema.

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 only 40% across 10 parameters including nested objects, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The most consequential fields are unexplained: 'specifications' ('Fields from the service's request schema') and 'requested_fields' beg for guidance on where those field names come from, and the cryptic slug note 'or anything-else' is not clarified.

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 ('Send') and resource ('a requirement') and names the target ('one of Decant's services'), so the create-a-request purpose is legible. It does not distinguish itself from the siblings (describe_proposition, list_propositions, extract_web_page) or clarify whether it submits to an existing service or an arbitrary 'anything-else' destination.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this is the entry point for a new requirement, whether you must first call describe_proposition to learn the service's request schema, or when to use the free-text 'need' versus structured fields. Alternatives and prerequisites are entirely left to inference.

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