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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior: the tool does not send the proposal. However, 'prepare' is vague and unqualified, with no mention of side effects, persistence, required context, permissions, or output.

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 a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is concise, though it sacrifices detail that the other dimensions need.

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, no required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, a one-line description is materially insufficient for correct invocation. The agent lacks information about parameter formats, required inputs, return values, and constraints.

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% for all 5 parameters, and the description adds no explanation of endpoint, prospect_id, prospect_name, value_proposition, or commission_request. With additionalProperties allowing arbitrary properties, the agent receives virtually no semantic guidance for parameters.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Prepare ... partner onboarding proposal') and explicitly says the proposal is not sent. This helps distinguish it from a sending/submitting tool, though it doesn't explain what 'prepare' actually produces or persists.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like submit_partner_application. The phrase 'do not send' implies a pre-submission step, but no conditions, alternatives, or workflow context are given.

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