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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description goes beyond them by explaining the write's actual effect: a first send creates a request whose receipt token is the requirement's own token, and a changed revision creates a revision of the same request rather than a new one. That reconciles the idempotent hint with revision semantics, which annotations alone could not convey. It does not state what the call returns or what happens to a resent identical revision, so it is not a 5.

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 first clause front-loads the action and the recipient, and the remaining clauses each add a distinct piece of semantics — first send versus revision, token reuse, and the fact that nothing is ordered. The semicolon-chained sentences are dense but every clause carries information, with no filler.

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 six-parameter tool with a nested contact object and no output schema, the description covers the important semantics (request creation, token reuse, revision naming, non-ordering) but omits what the call returns and leaves op_id and contact unexplained. An agent could call it correctly in the main path but would be guessing about the response and the idempotency key.

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 50%, and the description compensates for the two most consequential fields: it explains that the token doubles as the receipt token used with request_status and offers, and that revision means 'the revision the buyer saw'. It says nothing about op_id, contact, or the action default beyond what the schema already documents, so half the parameters still rely on structured fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Send the requirement to Goodstanding' — and immediately distinguishes two modes of the same call: a first send that records the request versus a later send of a changed requirement that records a revision. It never names a sibling tool directly, so the differentiation from edit_requirement or submit_request is inferred rather than stated, 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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('once the buyer says to') and implicitly distinguishes this from the offer/acceptance flow by saying 'an offer comes later and is accepted separately on its exact terms'. That is a useful boundary against accept_offer, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use rule or named alternative, so it falls one step short of the top score.

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