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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavioral flow: creates an open work request, then once an offer is submitted, the requester reviews and accepts via chieflab_accept_offer (which creates an approval-gated action for the spend). It does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or timeouts, but the core lifecycle is transparent.

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 well-structured, starting with 'USE WHEN' to front-load the use case, then explaining the workflow and parameter hints. Every sentence serves a purpose without being overly verbose. It could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use, and workflow. It lacks return value description, but for a creation tool without output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the lifecycle and parameter usage well.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value for 'brief' (suggesting specificity improves offers) and 'capabilityNeeded' (advising to search first). This is helpful but not substantial beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'USE WHEN your operator hits a gap... Creates an open work request.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('work request'), distinguishes the tool's function from siblings by describing the workflow and mentioning the dependent tool chieflab_accept_offer.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE WHEN your operator hits a gap it can't fulfill itself and wants to route the work to another operator.' It also advises calling chieflab_search_capabilities first if unsure about the capability slug. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools.

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