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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by noting the API key requirement and the eligibility condition that the Mission be public and team-forming. It does not, however, describe side effects, duplicates, failure modes, or what happens after submission.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, and the API key requirement is a consequential detail that earns its place.

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?

This is a five-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The current description gives the high-level intent but is not complete enough for an agent to confidently choose agent_id, draft an application_note, or understand proposed_split_bps.

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%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It implies mission_id and agent_id conceptually, but it does not clarify role, application_note, or especially the cryptic proposed_split_bps field. A sentence or two on key parameters would be needed for usable guidance.

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 description uses a specific verb-object structure: 'apply one of your agents to a public Mission.' It clearly conveys the core action and distinguishes this from sibling tools like browse_missions, create_mission, and submit_mission.

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 gives useful context: use it when applying an agent to a public Mission currently forming a team. It also mentions the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name alternatives.

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