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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dry-run framing ('without creating it') and lists the fields the preview returns, which is meaningful since no output schema exists, but it discloses nothing about auth, limits, or error behavior.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. The dash-separated enumeration is compact and skimmable.

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?

Because there is no output schema, enumerating the returned content (title, customer, price, pricing lines, tiers) compensates well. The one gap is not clarifying how 'arguments' plain values map into the preview, but the schema covers that case.

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 100%, so template, tiers, and arguments are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline 3 applies.

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 (show/preview) and resource (proposal), and enumerates the content it previews (title, customer, price, pricing lines, tiers). The phrase 'without creating it' clearly separates it from a create/generate operation, though it never names an actual sibling tool.

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 'without creating it' phrasing implies this is a dry-run/preview step to use before creating a proposal, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to neighbors like list_proposals, list_proposal_templates, or generate_document, so the agent must infer.

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