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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds real value on top by scoping the side effect (writes an enquiry, notifies Kesterley only) and flagging that the request is non-binding and requires a named person to confirm later. It does not cover auth requirements or failure behavior, but the write profile is well disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by side-effect scope. No filler, though the final confirmation sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 15-parameter write operation with no output schema and near-zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent would not know what the call returns, how required identifiers like company_id or offer_code are obtained, or what the enum fields mean.

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 15 parameters and only 7% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden but explains almost none of them. The only hint is that a named person must confirm, which loosely relates to approver_name/approver_email; fields like company_id, offer_code, competitors, source, billing, and the trap field contact_time go unaddressed.

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: sends a non-binding order request, writes an enquiry, and notifies Kesterley. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only get_*/list_* siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The description implies the use case (requesting a Standard Position Map) and clarifies the request is non-binding, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-consult-get_offer/get_market guidance and no prerequisites beyond the later confirmation step.

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