draft_proposal_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'grounded' and states the applicable domain, but it doesn't clarify whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, has side effects, or is safe to call. This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and deliverable. The parenthetical adds useful scope clarification without unnecessary verbosity. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 (which may define the return value), but the description itself is sparse. It doesn't mention required parameters, where 'profile_id' comes from, or how the 'opportunity' fields are used. While the tool's role as a proposal-drafting companion to the sibling search tools is implied, an agent would need more context to use it confidently.

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 the parameters. It only vaguely refers to 'profile + opportunity' without naming profile_id, opportunity_type, opportunity_title, or opportunity_description, and gives no details about their meaning or format. This does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and identifies the deliverable as 'a grounded proposal outline + short pitch'. It clearly differs from sibling tools, which are mostly search/list/retrieve operations or profile-management utilities, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 specifies that it works for 'grants and donation/public-goods vehicles,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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