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

Adds key behaviors beyond annotations: 'no external research or outbound actions', 'returns a draft for human review', and 'payment requires explicit wallet authorization'. These enrich the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations without contradiction, though it doesn't detail other side effects.

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 concise sentences: main purpose, constraints, and payment. Front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could integrate parameter guidance without bloating.

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 5 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description omits crucial invocation details: what each parameter means, how to construct the `input`, and what the returned draft looks like. Payment and scope are covered, but the agent lacks enough to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It mentions 'scope, deliverables, timing, pricing' but these are not mapped to the schema's `brief` or `source_text`. Fields like `result_expires`, `idempotency_key`, and `payment_signature` remain unexplained, leaving agents to guess.

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 'Draft' with resource 'proposal' and lists inputs (scope, deliverables, timing, pricing). Distinguishes from siblings like scope_of_work_draft (focused on scope only) and proposal_review_agent (review) by emphasizing drafting and flagging missing terms.

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?

Clear context: it drafts from supplied info, uses only buyer-supplied data, and no external research. Implies when to use (when all info is present) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use. Could be stronger with explicit contrasts.

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