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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by introducing 'revision-safe' and 'owned engagement,' hinting at optimistic concurrency and ownership requirements. It does not disclose conflict behavior, what happens on revision mismatch, or the response format, but the annotations already communicate write intent via readOnlyHint=false.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('revision-safe', 'proposal or SOW draft', 'owned engagement') carries meaningful information about the operation.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and weak structured metadata, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the revision-safety mechanism, the expected_latest_revision parameter, or the semantics of title/body, leaving an agent to guess important invocation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only weakly maps to parameters: 'proposal or SOW' corresponds to the kind enum and 'owned engagement' hints at engagement_id. It does not explain title, body, or expected_latest_revision, which is especially important for a 'revision-safe' tool.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a revision-safe proposal or SOW draft on an owned engagement.' It names specific document types (proposal/SOW), distinguishes this from update/approve siblings, and matches the tool's core function.

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 phrase 'on an owned engagement' implies a prerequisite/ownership condition and 'revision-safe draft' implies creation of a new revision. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus update_consulting_document_revision or approve_consulting_document_revision, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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