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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact beyond them: submissions persist and are tracked by a returned reference number. It does not warn that repeated submits create duplicate requests (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or describe what the reference number looks like.

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, no filler, with the core action stated first. The brevity is efficient, though part of it comes from omission rather than disciplined editing.

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 10-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits the required-field pair, the open-ended specifications contract, and any notion of what a successful response contains. An agent could not assemble a valid call from this description alone.

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 description coverage is only 40% across 10 parameters with nested objects, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never names slug, need, budget, timing, quantity, specifications, or requested_fields, and gives no hint that 'specifications' must mirror a per-service request schema — the single most error-prone field. Only the 'need' meaning is loosely echoed by 'a requirement in words'.

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 a requirement') and names the destination ('one of Plumbline's services'), so an agent knows this creates a submission rather than querying one. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (entity_lookup, screen_sanctions, list_propositions), none of which submit anything. It stops short of 5 because 'requirement' and 'service slug' are domain jargon left undefined.

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 explanation of how to pick a slug or when 'anything-else' applies. The description never says what happens if a need doesn't match a known service, which is exactly the decision an agent must make before calling.

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