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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses authentication/authorization requirements, the side effect that the alliance is notified and must accept, and the destructive-ish behavior that existing pending proposals are overwritten. What is missing is whether a proposal can be withdrawn later and whether any rate limit or versioning applies.

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?

Front-loaded with the permission gate and the sequencing instruction, then the side effect, then the parameter definition. It is dense but every clause carries information; the brackets and semicolons make it slightly harder to scan than plain sentences.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers authentication, authorization, prerequisite read, override behavior, counterparty notification, and precise unit semantics of the rate value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does for the non-obvious one: allianceShareBps is basis points (10000 = 100%) representing the alliance's share of the customer-acquisition/management revenue pool, explicitly not the whole-order revenue ratio. organizationId is left to the schema/obviousness, which is a minor gap.

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 and resource – proposing the alliance's share ratio for an organization – and immediately clarifies the exact meaning of the share (pool share, not whole-order revenue). This distinguishes it from respond_organization_alliance_share and set_alliance_organization_share, which act on existing shares rather than creating a 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?

Preconditions are explicit: login required, caller must be the actual organization manager and the organization must be in an alliance relationship, and one should read the current share first. It also states that the proposal supersedes any pending proposal from either party. It never names the sibling tools (set_/respond_) as alternatives, so routing between set-vs-propose-vs-respond is left to inference.

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