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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already carried by structured fields; the description adds the meaningful trait that the tool holds no state. It also lists the proposal's sections, which substitutes for a missing output schema. What it omits is whether the intake or generated proposal is persisted anywhere despite being 'stateless' while not read-only, and nothing about cost or latency of generation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and zero filler; the parenthetical enumeration is efficient. It is perhaps too terse for a tool whose input schema is fully undefined, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

With no output schema the description does a reasonable job of describing the return artifact, and it flags statelessness. But against a fully unconstrained intake object and a crowded sibling set, it leaves the two things an agent most needs — the intake contract and the routing rule versus start_proposal/adjust_proposal — undocumented.

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?

The single 'intake' parameter is an open object with additionalProperties:{} and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema conveys almost nothing. The description only says 'pass intake JSON' and never names a required field, shape, or example, forcing the agent to guess at the intake contract.

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 ('Build a concrete indicative proposal') and enumerates the artifact's contents (steps, automation split, model tier, pricing ranges, CTA), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like start_proposal or adjust_proposal, leaving the 'get_' prefix slightly at odds with the generative wording.

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?

'Stateless — pass intake JSON' describes an input requirement, not a usage condition. Nothing says when to call this versus start_proposal, adjust_proposal, or get_pricing_model, so an agent must infer the entry point from the name alone.

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