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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write in a closed world (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds the key side-effect fact that no email is dispatched, which annotations do not convey. It omits permissions, idempotency behavior of creationKey, and what expiryPolicy does.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect caveat. Every clause 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with 6 required fields, nested objects, two enums, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain the idempotency role of creationKey and the meaning of expiryPolicy, which no other structured field documents.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it barely does. 'Quote or proof' loosely maps to the type enum, yet creationKey (idempotency), deadlineAt, expiryPolicy, recipient, message, and the nested content structure are entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Save a customer quote or proof as a draft'), and 'does not send an email' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling send_approval_request. It stops short of naming that sibling, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

'This does not send an email' implies the tool is for drafting rather than dispatching, which gestures at when to use it versus send_approval_request. However, it never explicitly states the alternative or the follow-up step, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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