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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the two output scenarios and mentions specific details like 'supplier-listed 402 price' and 'ledger-only reference price'. However, it omits any side effects (e.g., whether a need or contract is persisted), authentication or permission requirements, and the meaning of 'machine contract' or 'funding question', leaving notable transparency gaps.

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 sentences, information-dense, and free of filler. The first sentence gives the primary action, and the second details outcomes. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a good high-level overview of outcomes but remains incomplete. It does not explain key terms like 'machine contract', 'ledger-only reference price', or 'funding question', and it ignores the optional parameters amount_usd and idempotency_key, leaving gaps in overall context.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'need' parameter by calling it a 'demand sentence', but it does not explain 'agent_key' beyond the schema's one-line description, nor does it address 'amount_usd' or 'idempotency_key' at all. The description's reference to 'one funding question' might relate to amount_usd, but this is not explicit.

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 action ('Send one demand sentence') and clearly describes the two possible outcomes: returning an existing capability with its address and price, or producing a machine contract with assumptions, a reference price, and a funding question. This distinguishes it from siblings like capability_call or capability_register, which target existing capabilities rather than intaking a need.

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 instruction 'Send one demand sentence' implies this tool is for expressing a need, and the description explains what happens when a matching capability exists versus when it doesn't. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as capability_call or capabilities_list, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool names.

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