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

Beyond the annotations, it adds that the proposal is created as a DRAFT and that nothing is sent, which is important side-effect context. It also notes that the title defaults from the advertisement, though it does not clarify the destructiveHint=true or idempotentHint=false 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the write action and draft status, then explains the key inputs. Every sentence carries relevant information without repetition.

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 9-parameter create tool with no output schema, it covers the core purpose, draft behavior, identifier options, and several field semantics. It could still say more about the note field, required identifier combinations, and what is returned, but the essentials are 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the identifier alternatives for customer and advertisement, the amount/currency meaning, the expire_date format, and the title default. It does not explain the note parameter, so it stops short of full parameter coverage.

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 and resource: preparing a customer offer as a DRAFT, tied to a customer and an advertisement/listing. It clearly distinguishes this from sending by saying 'Nothing is sent: use send_customer_proposal.'

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?

It explicitly says this creates a draft and that sending is handled by send_customer_proposal. That gives the agent a concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule relative to a sibling tool.

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