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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds 'durable' (persistence) and the authentication requirement ('requires a scoped buyer credential'), which are useful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like validation rules or potential side effects beyond creation.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the credential constraint, earning every word.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, 5 required, nested requirements array, output schema), the description is drastically under-specified. It does not explain what a 'durable supply project' entails, what the brief should contain, or the meaning of demand_lane/project_type. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the input side remains insufficiently described for an agent to know how to construct a valid request.

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 schema description coverage at only 6%, the description had a responsibility to explain key parameters, but it does not. The mention of origin types maps to the origin_type enum already present in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Required fields like name, project_type, demand_lane, and brief are completely unexplained, leaving agents to infer their meaning from names and types alone.

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?

Description states a clear action ('Create a durable supply project') and enumerates specific origin types (idea, file, BOM, exact part, RFQ), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like source_project or create_purchase_plan. The verb+resource combination is precise and actionable.

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 usage when a project needs to be created from a listed origin, and mentions a credential requirement, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It provides enough context for basic selection but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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