atcExemptProposal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic context by indicating this is a proposal and not the actual request, which is helpful. It does not disclose error cases, permissions, or response format, but given the lightweight annotations and simple read-only nature, this is acceptable.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core concept and immediately clarifies the tool's purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 simple single-parameter read-only preview tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context. It could mention what the returned proposal contains or how it relates to atcRequestExemption, but the core usage is understandable and nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for markerId with a clear explanation ('The ID of the marker.'), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add any meaning about how markerId is used or why it is needed, but it does not need to due to full schema 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 names a specific resource (exemption proposal for an ATC finding) and clarifies its role as a pre-request preview. It is not a tautology, but it lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'preview', so the action is implied rather than stated. It distinguishes itself from a real exemption request by saying 'before requesting it', though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 phrase 'before requesting it' gives an implied usage context: call this to preview before submitting an actual exemption request. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., atcRequestExemption) or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is useful but not explicit.

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