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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states no outbound actions or private CRM access, payment requires explicit wallet authorization, and it never invents binding terms. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by clarifying the nature of side effects (payment) and constraints. It does not contradict any annotation, and the mention of 'no outbound actions' refines the openWorldHint rather than contradicting it.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is dense but every sentence adds value: scope constraints, payment, and output type. It is appropriately sized for a complex synthesis tool, though slightly long, and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (synthesis with many components), the description covers key behavioral constraints and output nature (draft for human review). However, it lacks detail on how to provide the source drafts (via the task string?) and does not explain the optional parameters or expected output format beyond 'draft'. With no output schema, more guidance on return structure would be helpful.

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%, and the description does not explain the schema parameters. It references 'supplied scope' etc., which likely belong in the 'task' string, but it does not map them to the input structure or explain optional fields like idempotency_key, payment_signature, or result_expires. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate these fields.

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 clearly states the tool's function: synthesize a review-ready business proposal using the proposal and risk register tools. It lists the specific components to include (scope, deliverables, exclusions, acceptance criteria, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like proposal_draft or risk_register by emphasizing synthesis and review. The verb 'synthesize' and resource 'business proposal' are precise.

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 explicitly instructs to use the proposal and risk register tools, implying this is the synthesis step after those tools produce drafts. It also sets boundaries: never invent approved prices, do not expand scope, and identifies additional deliverables as pending. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for simpler synthesis tasks, leaving some inference to the agent.

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