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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses login requirement, that the result includes a draft, and that the request is publicly visible (with a secrets warning). It omits fee/cost implications, editability, and moderation/lifecycle behavior a publisher would want to know.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage condition, then constraints. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, auth, public-visibility risk, and a return hint ('includes a draft'). It could say more about the created request's identifier or subsequent workflow, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 67%, so the schema documents category, budgetUsdc, deliveryDays, and sessionToken. The description's mention of 'price, delivery time, approach' loosely maps to budget/delivery parameters but adds no format, bounds, or enum detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 fits.

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 ('Post a task that is not in the catalog') with the downstream effect stated (people send proposals). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_services, create_order, and send_proposal.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use it when search_services finds nothing that fits,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It also routes follow-up behavior to send_message for sensitive data.

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