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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses the full state machine, what terminal:true means, the transition sequence, and the timing envelope. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit specifics, but the return-shape and terminal semantics are thoroughly covered.

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?

The description is front-loaded with what is returned, then the state flow, then the polling contract. It is dense but nearly every clause (state names, terminal flag, cadence) carries useful information, with only minor redundancy between the endpoint string and the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (state, seller, handshake, code grade, devnet job id, transaction). Combined with the terminal flag and polling cadence, an agent has what it needs; only auth expectations are unaddressed.

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 100%, and the id format (dm_ + 24 hex) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the GET path template, which is redundant with the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it retrieves ONE demand plus every step the auto-match loop wrote on it. The state enumeration (open → claimed → matched → hired → graded → settling → settled, or unmatched/failed) and the GET endpoint make it instantly distinguishable from the plural taifoon_list_demands and the related taifoon_grid_status/hiring_stages siblings.

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 concrete operational guidance: poll every 30–60 s and expect settlement within ~15 minutes, plus the terminal:true signal for stopping. It does not explicitly name list_demands as the alternative for querying multiple demands, so routing is implied rather than stated, but the when-to-poll guidance is clear and actionable.

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