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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety or behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: the free-tier cap of 3 per month and the return values (reference, total, file path). It does not disclose side effects like overwriting, but that is covered in the schema's overwrite parameter, so this is not a significant gap.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and inputs, the second return values, and the third a usage limitation. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no vague, redundant, or promotional wording.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: purpose, input categories, return values, and a limitation. The schema covers parameter details. It does not mention the business_set profile dependency, but that is present in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 90%, so the schema provides detailed parameter semantics. The description only lists field names (summary, scope, deliverables, timeline, price, terms) without adding extra meaning about formats, defaults, or constraints, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 ('produce') and resource ('client-ready .docx proposal') and lists the content components, making it unmistakably a proposal-creation tool. The title reinforces creation, distinguishing it from siblings like contract_create and proposal_update without ambiguity.

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 opening instruction 'Call this tool to produce a client-ready .docx proposal' gives clear context for when to use it, and the free-tier limit adds a constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for contracts or updates), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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