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

The description directly contradicts the openWorldHint annotation: annotations declare openWorldHint=true, but the description states 'no external research or outbound actions,' implying no world access. This is a clear contradiction. Additionally, destructiveHint=true is not addressed in the description, leaving behavioral side effects undisclosed.

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 concise, with three focused sentences. It front-loads the primary action and quickly covers constraints (no external research) and output (draft for review). No fluff or 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?

For a paid, potentially destructive tool with no output schema and contradictory annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details about output format, the role of signature parameters, payment flow specifics, and any side effects. The contradiction with openWorldHint further undermines completeness.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'buyer-supplied information' and lists RFP sections but does not map them to specific parameters like brief, source_text, or audience. The payment and signature parameters (result_expires, idempotency_key, etc.) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 drafts an RFP with specific sections (background, scope, response format, evaluation criteria, timeline placeholders) and clarifies it uses only buyer-supplied information. This distinguishes it from generic drafting tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like proposal_draft or scope_of_work_draft.

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 implies when to use it (when drafting an RFP from buyer information) and explicitly states no external research or outbound actions, which guides expectations. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or compare with similar sibling tools, 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.