Publish an offer

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description carries the real burden and does it well: it explains the two divergent outcomes, that Trood prices and delivers the work, the partner's 10% commission, and crucially that 'nothing is sent to the company' — a non-obvious external side effect.

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 critical precondition is unfortunately placed at the very end rather than front-loaded. The middle sentences carry business detail (10% of first-12-month payments, Trood's price list) that helps explain outcomes to a user but is not needed to decide whether to invoke the 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 no-output-schema, open-world mutation the description covers consequences and preconditions thoroughly, including idempotent re-call implications implied by 'approved brief'. It does not say what the tool returns (link, status, confirmation), which an agent may need to relay.

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%, so both required parameters are already documented. The description only restates 'pass confirm: true' and otherwise adds no format or edge-case detail (e.g. what happens if companyName is omitted when research failed). Baseline 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 ('Sends the approved brief to the Trood Platform'), which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_company or list_my_offers. The word 'approved' implicitly positions it as the step after draft_offer, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Only call it after the person has read the brief and said yes, and pass confirm: true.' It also distinguishes the two downstream paths (Trood operator vs partner). It stops short of naming draft_offer as the required predecessor tool by name.

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