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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call; the description adds real context beyond that: the first call creates the request, later calls append revisions, and the requirement's private token doubles as the request's receipt token. It does not describe what a failed or duplicate send does, which would have made this stronger.

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?

The key condition ("once the buyer says to") and the create-vs-revise distinction are front-loaded, and every clause carries information. The nested parenthetical about the receipt token makes the first sentence dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the state transition and the no-order guarantee well, but leaves op_id (the idempotency key implied by idempotentHint) and the contact/action fields unexplained. An agent can call it correctly on the happy path, yet the retry semantics remain unclear.

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 only 50% schema coverage, the description usefully explains that token is the receipt token of the request (keep private), that a later send means a changed requirement, and that the revision must be the one the buyer saw. That gives meaning to two of the six parameters, though op_id, action, and contact are left entirely to the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Send the requirement to Fluefold") and immediately disambiguates the two modes: a first send records the request, a later send of a changed requirement records a revision of the same request. It also points to the sibling request_status by naming where the receipt token is used, so an agent can separate this from inspect/offer tools.

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 is stated explicitly ("once the buyer says to"), and the description rules out a common misreading by clarifying that sending "orders nothing" and that an offer must be accepted separately. It stops short of naming siblings such as edit_requirement or submit_purchase_order as the alternative path, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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