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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that it returns a proposal_id and that uploads become versions of this page, which is important lifecycle context absent from the schema.

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 two leading sentences are well front-loaded and information-dense, but the trailing keyword list (~12 terms) is retrieval padding that dilutes the definition and is not operational guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return value (proposal_id) and version behavior, and annotations carry the safety profile. Missing only secondary details like permission or sharing prerequisites.

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 75%, so the schema already documents internal, folder_id, and allow_copy. The description only restates that folders are optional, adding no new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides; 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 (create) and resource (page/proposal) and enumerates the artifacts it covers (report, proposal, deck, interactive page). It also distinguishes itself from list_proposals for updates, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 a clear conditional: use list_proposals first when updating existing pages to avoid duplicates, and notes folders are optional. It does not name all relevant neighbors (e.g. create_folder, copy_proposal), but the primary when/when-not is explicit.

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