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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call reaches other people, defaults to requiring per-call confirmation (switchable), and consumes a metered Proposal credit. That quota and human-facing side effect are exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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 first two sentences say nearly the same thing (send a proposal with brief/price/delivery/deposit), so the payload list is duplicated. The meaningful operational notes (credit consumption, confirmation, API key) are buried rather than front-loaded.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the important runtime facts an agent needs: audience reach, confirmation default, credit cost, and auth requirement. Only usage routing versus sibling tools is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already documents (brief, price, delivery, deposit), adding only 'hold in Escrow' clarification for deposit_percent.

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 specific verb ('Send a proposal') and resource ('to a project') plus the payload fields (brief, price, delivery time, optional deposit). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like peopleperhour_create_offer or peopleperhour_cancel_proposal without opening a 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?

Clearly frames the operational context: one project per call, under your name, counts against monthly free Proposals, needs a Cotlet API key with access. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g. create_offer vs send_proposal) or state when not to use this tool.

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