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

Annotations indicate no safety hints (readOnly=false, etc.), so the description must carry the burden. It does this well: it discloses that the operation is asynchronous (returns a job_id, polling every 20s), that it produces a report and receipt, that package=true bundles attachments and receipt, and that it is free up to 10 commits per proposal. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 dense but efficient, with each sentence adding critical information. It is front-loaded with the main action, then parameters, then billing/polling details. No redundant phrases.

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?

The tool is complex: asynchronous, with multiple outputs and billing nuances. The description covers usage, polling, and package behavior, and the output schema exists to explain return values. It lacks explicit explanation of 'confirm' parameter and does not detail error cases, but given the output schema and the richness of the description, it is nearly complete.

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 explains proposal_id, values (field_id, value, note), policy (safe or strict), and package. It does not explain 'confirm' explicitly, though it can be inferred from 'Write or confirm the answers'. Given the schema has no descriptions, the description partially compensates but misses one parameter.

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's purpose: write/confirm answers, render the form, check it, and return a PDF with a report and receipt, or a submission package. It mentions the key resource (proposal_id) and distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_form (which is the prerequisite) and get_job (polling).

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 provides clear usage context: it requires a proposal_id from prepare_form, and it mentions when to use package=true. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for different workflows (e.g., fill_form for simpler filling). Still, the context is strong enough.

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