dp_commercial_request_proposalRequest an email-verified Enterprise proposal. This does not create a contract or charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| locale | No | es | |
| companyName | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| links | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| nextAction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "nextAction": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "data",
+ "error",
+ "nextAction",
+ "links",
+ "evidence",
+ "version"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description is not the only source of behavioral context. It usefully adds that no contract is created and no charge is incurred, but it does not reveal what actually happens when the proposal is requested (e.g., whether an email is sent, a record is created, or something is overwritten), which is relevant given openWorldHint and destructiveHint.
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 description is one tight sentence plus a caveat, with no wasted words. The most distinctive facts are front-loaded, and the negative boundary is stated immediately.
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 an action tool with destructive and open-world hints, four parameters, and many sibling commercial tools, this description is too thin. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves unclear when to choose this over checkout/trial options, why an idempotency key is needed, and what side effects occur.
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%, so the description needs to compensate for the parameters. The phrase 'email-verified' gives some clue about the email parameter, but idempotencyKey, locale, and companyName are not explained at all, and the role of idempotencyKey is important for correct invocation.
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?
The description names a specific action ('Request') and a specific resource ('email-verified Enterprise proposal'), and adds a decisive boundary ('does not create a contract or charge'). This makes the tool's purpose clear even among many sibling commercial tools.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as dp_commercial_start_checkout, dp_commercial_start_live_trial, or dp_commercial_get_offer. The no-contract/no-charge caveat is a behavioral clarification, not a routing rule, and prerequisites or selection criteria are left implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.