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

Goes well beyond the annotations: proposal expires, approval token is private and bound to this exact proposal, no host notification occurs, and idempotency keys must be renewed per proposal but reused for retries. These are non-obvious operational traits that annotations (idempotentHint/destructiveHint) cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and exclusion are front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is post-call response-styling guidance (sentence counts, word limits, what not to narrate) that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Valuable content is buried in an oversized block.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers the approval/token lifecycle and the no-submit boundary well. The main gap is unaddressed parameter semantics for id and locale given 0% schema coverage.

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 compensate, and it only partially does: it explains idempotencyKey semantics and implies revision/answers through 'validate answers against the current host form' and 'bound to this exact proposal'. The 'id' and 'locale' parameters are never explained, leaving two of five undocumented in both places.

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 specific verbs and resources ('validate answers against the current host form', 'prepare an expiring proposal') and immediately scopes what it is not ('does not submit an enquiry or notify the host'), which cleanly separates it from submit_enquiry. An agent can identify this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit about the workflow: prepare, present the returned details, obtain explicit approval, then proceed, and it states the exclusion ('does not submit an enquiry or notify the host'). It also gives concrete idempotencyKey usage rules (fresh UUID per proposal, reuse on retries). It stops short of naming submit_enquiry as the follow-up sibling, so 4 rather than 5.

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