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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but say nothing about what sending actually creates. The description fills that gap: it discloses that the send records a request whose receipt token equals the requirement's token, that subsequent sends of a changed requirement create a revision rather than a new request, and that no purchase obligation arises. Remaining gaps are error behavior and what a call returns.

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?

The key action comes first, followed by the first-send/revised-send distinction and then the negative scope statement, so it is well front-loaded. It is dense but each clause carries information; the parenthetical about the receipt token is the closest thing to clutter, though it is genuinely useful.

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 six-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important semantics: the send-versus-revision model, the token contract that links it to request_status and offers, and the absence of an ordering effect. It is slightly incomplete on the two undocumented parameters and on what a successful call yields, but the core calling decision is fully supported.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning for two parameters: 'token' is explained as the private token that also serves as the request's receipt token, and 'revision' is explained as the revision the buyer saw. But 'op_id' and the nested 'contact' object are documented in neither the schema nor the description, and 'action' is left entirely to the schema's enum description.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('send the requirement to Tendmark Buildings') and immediately disambiguates the two distinct operations it performs: a first send that records the request versus a later send of a changed requirement that records a revision. It also explicitly distinguishes sending from ordering ('This orders nothing'), which prevents a costly misreading of intent.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('once the buyer says to') and a clear internal branch (first send vs. changed-requirement resend), plus a negative condition (it does not place an order; an offer follows and is accepted separately). It stops short of naming the sibling an agent should use instead when the goal really is to edit or to order, so routing to alternatives is left implicit.

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