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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive side effect on competing proposals ('the other proposals are declined'), the resulting artifact and its privacy, the milestone fan-out into one service per phase, and crucially the billing state ('Nothing is charged yet'). It also names the returned serviceId, which is the agent's handle for the next call.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by consequences and the required next step. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what happens to the accepted and rejected proposals, the milestone edge case, the billing implication, and the field to use for follow-up. Nothing material 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 67% (requestId and sessionToken documented; proposalId bare), and the description adds only indirect meaning — 'one proposal for your request' implies the pairing of requestId and proposalId but gives no format or selection guidance. That is the expected baseline when the schema does most of the work.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Accept one proposal for your request', followed by the resulting state change (becomes a private service, other proposals declined). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like send_proposal, list_proposals, and create_order, which is even named as the follow-up.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is used (a request owner selecting among proposals) and routes the agent to the next tool: 'fund it with create_order using the returned serviceId (phase by phase for milestones)'. It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g., proposal already accepted, expired request), so it falls just short of a 5.

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