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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description adds real value by explaining the parse-and-question behavior: each value records its source words, conflicts collapse into one question, and unread words are preserved verbatim. It still says nothing about permissions, limits (e.g. the 2000-character utterance cap), or retry semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the mechanics, then the routing to siblings — a sensible order with no filler. The sentences are long and clause-heavy, which slightly slows parsing, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing what comes back: a structured requirement with word-level provenance, a single clarifying question, and unread text preserved. For a 4-parameter tool with a nested continuation object, this is nearly complete; only error and size-limit behavior is unspecified.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description still adds flow-level meaning the schema cannot: the nested requirement (id, token) is explicitly the handle for continuing an existing requirement across turns, rather than a generic object.

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 object ('Give Quarterline the buyer's requirement ... in their own words') and immediately names the transformation ('read into a structured requirement'). It is clearly distinguished from the two siblings an agent could confuse it with, send_requirement and submit_request.

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 to use it (free-text requirement, corrections, additions), when not to ('Nothing is sent or ordered: send_requirement sends it'), and the alternative for pre-structured input ('use submit_request instead'). It also gives the continuation procedure: pass id and token from the first answer.

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