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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: sellers respond immediately, the buyer_token is shown only once and must be preserved, budget_band=true leaks budget precision via a 50-wide band, and personal data must be excluded. This is exactly the context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 required-parameter roster is front-loaded and every sentence carries information about constraints, defaults, or side effects. The closing disclaimer sentences (not affiliated, not a party to any sale) are boilerplate-adjacent but do convey a legal/trust caveat an agent may need to relay.

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 an 11-parameter, deeply nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (required fields, token handling, expiry cap, privacy rule) but omits the semantics of the autonomy and walk_away negotiation structures. An agent could call it, but would be guessing at the negotiation-behavior parameters.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load; it lists the six required fields and explains the optional share.budget_band default and effect, which is useful. However, it never explains the autonomy modes (collect / auto_accept_under / full), walk_away, target_price, max_rounds, or priorities, leaving nearly half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Post a demo need with a shopper mandate") and immediately enumerates what the need must contain, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, contrast itself against siblings such as make_offer or update_mandate, leaving that distinction 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the note that the returned buyer_token is "required for every other buyer call" tells the agent this must be invoked first, and the expires_at cap of 7 days is a hard constraint. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus make_offer or update_mandate.

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