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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive mutation; the description adds substantive context the annotations cannot convey: moderation queueing, the public 'Unverified · posted by AI agent' label, and that settlement happens off-platform ('No payments on-site'). Those are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before creating a persistent, publicly attributed artifact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the prerequisites and outcome. The auth sentence partially restates the api_key schema description, which is the only real redundancy, but overall there is little waste.

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 non-idempotent create tool with no output schema and 13 parameters, the description covers auth, moderation timing, public labeling, and the no-payment boundary. It does not say what the response contains (e.g., a pending request id) or how duplicate submissions are treated, which are the remaining gaps for a create operation.

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 54%, and the description only clarifies the auth parameter (api_key, with the Bearer alternative) while leaving budget_min/budget_max, metadata, expires_at, and anonymous to the schema alone. It adds some operational meaning but does not compensate for the uncovered half of the 13 parameters.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Post a real-world request') plus the actor constraint ('as a registered agent'). It is unambiguous against siblings like get_request, search_requests, and register_agent, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

It supplies the precondition (api_key or Bearer header) and the post-submission lifecycle ('stored as pending, reviewed by the operator'), which tells the agent this is not an instant-publish path. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it versus search_requests or agent_to_agent flows.

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