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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does: it discloses the auth requirement (seller wallet login), the commitment consequence (wallet owner is bound if the buyer accepts), and the update-in-place semantics of a repeat call. It omits fee/refund handling and proposal expiry, but the critical mutating behavior is surfaced.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its payload, followed by the precondition and the risk warning. The warning sentence in particular earns its place by preventing an agent from proposing undeliverable work.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, side effects and idempotency behavior well. It does not say what a successful call returns (e.g. a proposal id), which an agent must infer, leaving a small gap.

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 already 83%, and the description largely restates schema facts (price, delivery time, 2-to-10 milestone split) rather than adding meaning. It adds the routing hint that requestId comes from list_open_requests, which is marginal over the schema's own description. 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?

States a specific verb (send) plus resource (proposal) and immediately scopes it: price, delivery time, work description, optional milestones. An agent can distinguish this from accept_proposal, list_proposals and post_request without opening the 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?

Establishes the precondition (open request, seller's wallet login) and the edge case that re-sending updates a pending proposal rather than creating a duplicate. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous.

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