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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the auth prerequisite ('Requires the organization API key') and the fact that this creates an externally-shared artifact surfaced as invite_url to third parties who must sign up. It does not address what happens on a duplicate title or whether existing requirements are mutated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the follow-on workflow, then the precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the key return value (invite_url) and the consumption path for it, plus the auth requirement, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It leaves minor ambiguity about idempotency/duplicate handling and item-key uniqueness that the annotations and schema don't cover.

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 100% and the items/title/valid_days parameters are already documented with examples and bounds in the schema. The description adds no field-level guidance of its own, so this sits at the baseline where the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Publish a requirement your suppliers must meet') with the object of the action clearly stated. It separates itself from sibling tools by naming supplier_proof_inbox as the decision surface, so an agent can place this in the supplier-proof family without opening other schemas.

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 lays out the downstream workflow — share the returned invite_url, suppliers answer from their own Privi org, approval happens in supplier_proof_inbox — which implicitly tells the agent what to do after calling. It stops short of explicit when-not/alternative phrasing (e.g. versus supplier_requirement_get or reusing an existing requirement).

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