request_deliverable

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the write nature is already known. The description adds nothing about the operational flow — notably that this is likely asynchronous and results are retrieved via check_deliverable_status, or whether repeat calls duplicate work. Useful output-type detail, but key behavioral context is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the trigger condition and then lists concrete examples. No filler, though the examples could have been traded for the missing operational or sibling-routing detail.

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 non-idempotent mutation that kicks off analyst work and has no output schema, the description should explain the follow-up (e.g., use check_deliverable_status to poll results). It covers what the tool produces but omits the lifecycle an agent needs to complete the task 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are self-documenting and the description carries no param burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate. Note a latent inconsistency: the `brief` schema says 'Agents imitate the example in the tool description', yet the description contains no such example.

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 clear verb-plus-resource (commissioning a finished document from an analyst) and enumerates concrete output types (executive briefing, research memo, strategic assessment, article), so the agent knows this produces a written deliverable. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not — consult_analyst — leaving the distinction to inference from 'finished document'.

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?

Provides a positive trigger ('Use when commissioning a finished document'), which is clearer than most siblings. However it names no alternative and gives no when-not condition, so an agent choosing between this, consult_analyst, and check_deliverable_status must infer the boundary itself.

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