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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: an external side effect (the broker follows up by email) and an auth prerequisite (verified email). It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether repeated calls create duplicate proposals, which is a real but secondary gap for a request-submission tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the side effect and the precondition. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be moved.

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 simple two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and precondition adequately. The only omission is what the caller gets back on success or failure, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the ids and note parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only light framing ('chosen yachts', the broker reading the note) and no syntax or format detail, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: asking a DMA broker to prepare a proposal for chosen yachts. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_yachts, yacht_details, and check_availability, which are read-only lookups, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Requires a verified email' gives a concrete precondition that implicitly routes the agent to verify_email/confirm_email first, and 'the chosen yachts' implies a prior search_yachts step. There are no explicit exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.

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