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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It adds one useful behavioral fact — the requirement is retained and a reference number is issued — but it does not warn that resubmitting creates duplicates (non-idempotent), nor mention permissions or what happens with the contact data that the schema says is deleted after 180 days.

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 scope, with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant or 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 non-idempotent write tool with 10 parameters, nested budget/quantity/timing/geography objects, and no output schema, two sentences are far too thin. The agent gets no picture of what a complete submission looks like, how slug maps to a service, or what the returned reference number is used for.

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, nested objects, an action enum, and only 40% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the key inputs. Instead it mentions none of them — no guidance on slug ('anything-else'), need, budget shape, timing, specifications, or requested_fields — leaving the weakest-described parameters undocumented in both places.

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 a requirement') and names the target ('one of Goodstanding's services'), so an agent knows this creates a requirement submission rather than reading anything. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling proposition tools, which is the only missing piece.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (describe_proposition, list_propositions) or when a caller should pick one over this. The only implicit context is 'to one of Goodstanding's services', which does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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