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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the first send creates the request and its receipt token becomes the requirement's token used by request_status and offers; resends create revisions; and crucially 'This orders nothing' with offers accepted separately. That last point prevents a serious misuse an agent could otherwise make.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and trigger, then the recording semantics, then the ordering caveat. Dense but each clause earns its place; the parenthetical about the receipt token is slightly convoluted but conveys necessary information.

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 6-parameter mutation with a nested contact object and no output schema, the description covers what the call does, what it creates, token reuse, and the critical fact that no order is placed. It leaves the meaning of action and contact unspecified, which is a modest gap but not fatal.

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 fills important gaps: token is explained as also being the receipt token (and private), and revision is explained as the revision the buyer actually saw. However, action, contact, and op_id receive no treatment in the description despite being undocumented or only lightly documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send the requirement to Latent Mile') and immediately distinguishes the two modes: a first send records the request, a later send of a changed requirement records a revision of the same request. An agent can tell this apart from edit_requirement or submit_request from the description alone.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('once the buyer says to') and clarifies the send-vs-resend distinction, which implicitly routes revision handling here rather than to edit_requirement. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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