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

Annotations declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive write, but the description adds the behavior that matters most: the request is not active until the contact confirms by email, OCOLO coordinates outreach and replies in 2-3 business days, and the returned status_token must be kept to check status later. That is substantive context beyond the annotation set.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the broker-etiquette paragraph is repetitive ('engage no more than one to three brokers', 'do not ... submit the same requirement to many brokers') and pushes the operationally critical details (required fields, confirmation flow, status_token) to the very end. The length is defensible for a 20-param tool, but several sentences restate the same warning.

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?

With 20 parameters at 90% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: the confirmation-gated activation, expected turnaround, and the status_token/guidance.what_happens_next return handling. It stops short of explaining the optional vendor/compliance inputs, but those are covered by the schema.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description only restates the required trio and the power_kw/power_mw alternative, both of which the schema already explains ('Send this or power_mw'). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Submit a data center colocation / space requirement to OCOLO') and frames it against the read-only siblings (status lookup, guidance) by describing it as the action that puts a requirement in front of 273 providers. An agent can distinguish this from get_project_request_status without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: only submit after the user asked (agent.on_behalf_of_confirmed=true), do not sign an exclusive agreement, engage at most one to three brokers, and do not also contact providers individually or submit to other marketplaces. This is unusually complete routing and exclusion guidance.

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