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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Log a request' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose required permissions, side effects, idempotency, validation behavior, or what happens after logging.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no unnecessary wording. However, its extreme brevity is not matched to the complexity of a 15-parameter creation tool.

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 mutation tool with 15 parameters, a nested address object, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, this description is far too thin. It states the broad purpose but omits the usage, parameter, and behavioral context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has 15 parameters and only 13% description coverage, yet the description adds almost no parameter meaning. It vaguely gestures at 'customer' versus 'new lead,' but does not explain title, shop_id, source, address, tags, lead_text, marketplace, or the other fields.

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 description states a clear verb and resource: 'Log a request for work.' It also distinguishes customer requests from new leads, but it gives no indication of how this differs from sibling tools like requests_formCreate, requests_submitForm, or requests_convert.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The agent cannot tell from this description whether to use requests_create versus requests_formCreate, requests_submitForm, homeowner_createRequest, or requests_convert.

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