isProposalMessage

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a pure classifier whose result controls whether an exemption can be requested. It does not explicitly say the return type, but 'whether' clearly implies a boolean result, which is sufficient for a simple predicate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core question, the alternative outcome, and the consequence of the result. Every clause contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only predicate with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it identifies what is being tested, why that test matters, and how it relates to exemption eligibility. The only minor gap is that the schema calls the parameter 'proposal' while the description speaks of a 'message from a check,' but the intent is still readable and actionable.

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% for the single parameter, documented as 'The ATC exemption proposal.' The description gives background about check messages and findings but does not add structural or format details to the proposal object itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already names the parameter and the description adds only domain context.

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 identifies a specific predicate: it determines whether a check message is an ATC proposal rather than a plain finding. It also explains the operational significance of that distinction, namely exemption eligibility. This distinguishes the tool from related siblings like atcRequestExemption or atcExemptProposal, which perform actions rather than classify a message.

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 explains when the predicate is relevant: when deciding whether an exemption can be requested for a check message. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would select this tool when needing a yes/no classification of proposal status before proceeding with exemption workflows.

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