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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool sends an email and depends on generate_kp data, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversibility of sending), error behavior, or return value. This is average transparency for a send operation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and supplemented by a clear dependency note. Every word is useful, no redundancy.

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 has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and the expected source of data, but lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., 'call generate_kp first'), what the function returns, or how failures are handled. It is minimally complete but not richly so.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds the context that kp_data comes from generate_kp, which is already stated in the schema, so it adds little beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool sends a generated КП (commercial proposal) to the client's email, with a specific verb ('Отправка') and resource ('email клиенту'). It also references generating data from 'generate_kp', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_lead or get_pool_price.

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 explicitly mentions it accepts data from generate_kp, implying a clear usage context: this tool should be used after generating a proposal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the reference to generate_kp provides strong guidance.

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