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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only say this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write: the description discloses the parsing outcome (each value records which words it came from), the failure/ambiguity behavior (conflicting or unclear facts come back as one question), and the retention rule (words not yet read are kept as written). It also states the crucial side-effect boundary that nothing is sent or ordered, which the readOnlyHint=false annotation alone would not disambiguate. It says nothing about auth or size/rate limits, so not quite maximal.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, then the side-effect boundary and sibling routing, then the structured alternative. Dense but readable; the parenthetical '(each value says which words it came from)' and '(id, token)' add precision rather than noise, though the middle sentence packs several ideas together.

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 four-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what goes in, what comes back conceptually (a structured requirement or a single clarifying question), how to continue a session, and which sibling to pick instead. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: the requirement (id, token) pair is explained as the continuation handle from 'the first answer,' clarifying that this parameter is for follow-up turns rather than initial calls. The utterance parameter's 'in their own words' framing reinforces the schema's 'as written' constraint.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Give Linklamp the buyer's requirement ... in their own words') and states the transformation it performs: free text is read into a structured requirement. It distinguishes itself from both siblings it could be confused with, send_requirement (sends) and submit_request (structured fields), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly covers when-not: 'Nothing is sent or ordered: send_requirement sends it when the buyer says so' and 'When you already have the fields in structured form, use submit_request instead.' It also gives the continuation condition, passing the (id, token) from the first answer, which is the main branching decision for this tool.

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