draft_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It mentions output features like i18n openers and A/B variants, but says nothing about side effects, persistence, permissions, rate limits, or whether a proposal is created or merely drafted.

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 very short but reads as a cryptic fragment rather than a structured, front-loaded statement. Its brevity comes at the cost of clarity, leaving the core action and context under-specified.

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, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, a required but undocumented parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough to ensure 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?

The tool requires one parameter, lead_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention lead_id or add any meaning beyond the bare schema field name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names output artifacts—short and full pitches with i18n opener, A/B variant, and anchor price—but never states the action explicitly. It is more informative than a tautology, yet fragmented and not clearly distinguished from siblings like pitch_ab_stats or package_prices.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling outreach and lead tools. The description leaves all routing decisions to inference.

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