Start a run of a purchase-requisition

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety or idempotency hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses three meaningful behaviors: steps are copied (snapshot semantics), runs are free and never capped, and the return value is the run id. This goes beyond the schema, but does not cover error conditions or permission requirements, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, followed by the snapshot behavior and cost note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 state return values—it does ('RUN-YYYY-NNNN id'). It also explains the copying behavior and cost model. It omits failure modes and preconditions, but given the moderate complexity and that the schema covers required parameters, it is sufficient for an agent to call 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 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented; note has no description). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither adds nor detracts.

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: 'Start a dated run of a purchase-requisition' and explicitly names the return value ('RUN-YYYY-NNNN id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_check, run_show, run_list, and run_sign_off, which all operate on existing runs rather than starting a new one.

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 clear context on when to use: to begin a dated run of a purchase-requisition. It also explains that steps are copied into the run, implying this is the correct tool when a snapshot is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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