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

Annotations only flag this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent write; the description adds the material behavior an agent cannot infer: a human reviews and quotes within a day, nothing reaches creators until that quote is accepted, and the call returns a request_id rather than results. That approval-gate detail is exactly the context needed before committing a mutation.

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?

Four short sentences: what it does, what to supply, what the human loop looks like, what comes back. The outcome and the no-send-until-accepted guarantee are front-loaded with no filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the approval gate, and the return value (request_id), which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves open whether repeated calls create duplicate requests and how the resulting request_id is later checked, though a sibling get_request likely handles the latter.

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 80%, so most parameters already carry their own descriptions. The description restates the four required fields and the two optional seeding inputs, but adds no semantics beyond what the schema documents, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Nava contacts creators with the brand's brief and returns who said yes, with their rates" names a specific actor, action, and output, and implicitly separates this tool from the sibling find_creators (search) by framing it as the outreach step. An agent can tell what it produces (responses plus rates) without opening the schema.

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 states the inputs to supply and notes that job_id comes "from find_creators" and creator_handles can seed the run, which implies the sequencing after a search. It stops short of an explicit "use this instead of X when Y" rule, so the when-not guidance is left to inference.

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