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

The description adds extensive behavior beyond the annotations: confirmation required on welance.com/directory, a live score gate decides publishing, one-time email link with no sign-in, a 64,000 UTF-8 byte total limit, and that the result includes a review link. This is rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then behavior and limits, and every sentence earns its place. There is minor redundancy between 'Stores a proposal only' and 'Nothing happens until the person confirms it,' but overall it is efficient.

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 proposal tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow, score gate, email behavior, size limit, and review-link return. It could mention failure or rejection cases, but the essential caller context is present.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate more. It does list title, markdown, and optional language and adds the 64,000-byte total constraint, but it omits the required 'summary' parameter entirely and provides no format details for the others.

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 specifies the verb (propose) and resource (publishing a brief to the board), and clarifies it stores a proposal only. It distinguishes from immediate publishing but does not explicitly name the sibling tool propose_brief_draft, leaving the agent to infer the contrast from the name.

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 usage through the confirmation flow and score gate, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like propose_brief_draft or propose_pitch_send. No explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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