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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that it stores a proposal only, that no side effect occurs until confirmation at welance.com/directory, that the brief owner then sees it, that each brief caps pitches at 10, and that the result contains the review link. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a two-phase write.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the confirmation caveat, then the 10-pitch cap and return value. Dense with semicolons but every clause carries operational information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (the review link) and what does not happen automatically (no send until human confirmation). Combined with the capacity limit and anonymity rule, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 50% (only text and summary are described in-schema), and the description compensates by explaining teamKey ('one of the person's teams') and briefId ('an open brief'). It adds the anonymity constraint that shapes text content, though it doesn't restate length bounds or what an invalid/closed briefId does.

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 precise verb+resource: proposes sending an anonymous pitch for a team (teamKey) on an open brief (briefId). The scope ('anonymous', 'on an open brief') and the two-phase propose-then-confirm nature are spelled out, so an agent can tell this apart from a plain draft tool or a direct-send tool 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?

The description implies the use case ('on an open brief', 'a proposal to send') and warns that nothing happens until confirmation, but it never names an alternative such as propose_pitch_draft or read_pitchable_briefs, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., when a brief is closed or the pitch cap is already reached). Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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