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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: nothing is ordered or committed until terms are agreed, timing/feasibility is only established during review, the submission is answered with a receipt whose id and token must be retained, and contact data retention is stated as 'while we correspond or do business and for 24 months after.' That is exactly the kind of cost/commitment/data-handling disclosure a non-destructive mutation tool needs and the annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and scoped by parenthetical, and nearly every sentence adds a decision-relevant fact (cost, commitment, receipt, retention). It is dense in a single unbroken block and mildly redundant between 'Nothing is ordered or committed until you agree terms' and 'A requirement is not an order and costs nothing,' which slightly hurts scannability.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the full lifecycle: submission, file follow-up, review, proposal, and the receipt contract that substitutes for an output schema. The remaining gap is parameter-level coverage for the structured commercial fields (quantity, budget, timing, geography), which an agent must guess at.

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 only 30% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description must do more of the work than it does. It explains 'need' ('your requirement'), the continuation id/token intent, and clarifies that contact drives email replies, but action, quantity, geography, specifications and requested_fields get no meaning from the description. Note the schema itself links specifications to 'request_schema describe_business returns,' which is genuinely useful and partially compensates.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Send Stillleaf a requirement,' then scopes it to memorial program correction, printing and delivery. It also implicitly separates itself from order-submission siblings via 'A requirement is not an order and costs nothing,' though it never names submit_purchase_order or state_purchasing_requirements directly, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 clear situational guidance: use it to open a new requirement, use the continuation id/token to add to an existing one, and use request_status to read progress. It also states the 'when not to use' condition ('not an order and costs nothing') and the human next step when no secure link exists. It does not explicitly route to accept_offer or counter_offer, which are the siblings an agent would need once a proposal arrives.

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