Post a request for providers to quote on

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Moves no money" is a genuinely useful disclosure that this is not a payment step, and "fee included" clarifies the budget ceiling. It omits auth requirements, whether a posted request can be cancelled or amended, and whether anything is returned (e.g. a request id the agent needs for later calls).

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The budget constraint is front-loaded and the workflow routing follows immediately, so the agent gets the essentials first.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, money-safety, and next steps adequately. It leaves the two timing parameters and any post-creation identifier or cancellation behavior undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for an agent that must construct a valid call.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for max_budget (USDC, fee inclusive) and loosely for title/brief via "describe work you need", but delivery_time_hours and quotes_close_in_hours — both with non-obvious semantics and tight ranges — are completely unaddressed.

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: posting a work request that providers quote on. The mention of agoreum_list_request_quotes and agoreum_accept_quote as downstream steps separates it cleanly from agoreum_quote_request (the provider side) and agoreum_place_order (the direct-buy path).

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?

The description sketches the full workflow: post here, read quotes with agoreum_list_request_quotes, accept with agoreum_accept_quote. It tells the agent what to do next but never states the when-not case, e.g. that agoreum_place_order should be used when the agent already knows the service and doesn't want to solicit bids.

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