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

Annotations are all false (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden and meets it well: it discloses the human advisor reply via e-mail, the absence of automatic booking/checkout/pricing, the reference return, and the idempotencyKey retry mechanism. This meaningfully adds context beyond the annotations, though it could mention failure behavior or response latency.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads purpose and key fields, the second clarifies behavior and exclusions, and the third covers idempotent retry. Every sentence earns its place and the critical disclaimers (no booking, no price list, human reply) appear before less important details.

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 tool with nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, key inputs, the return value ('Returns a reference'), the human-reply behavior, and the retry mechanism. The only gap is that it doesn't surface the optional request-enrichment fields or what to expect if the submission fails, which is a minor omission given the essential flow is well captured.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate. It lists the core required fields (contact, destinations within Spain/Portugal/Morocco, dates, travellers, total budget, interests), which maps well to the required parameters. However, many optional-but-useful parameters (occasion, needs, notes, accommodationStyle, requester, preferredChannel) are left to the schema with no description-level elaboration, so coverage of the full parameter surface is incomplete.

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 ('Submit'), a clear resource ('a structured proposal request to Kratons'), and the actor context (on behalf of a traveller or travel agent). It lists the key fields and clearly differentiates from the sibling get_proposal_request_status (which checks status) and how_to_request_a_proposal (which is guidance), since this tool actually submits and returns a reference.

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?

The description gives strong context: it explicitly states this is a human-in-the-loop flow with 'no automatic booking, no online checkout and no price list', which helps an agent decide this is for curated, non-immediate requests. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use get_proposal_request_status to check progress), so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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