Phenomenai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a batch submission tool (mutating, as it 'proposes' terms), mentions efficiency benefits and API rate limit avoidance, and hints at HTTP request behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral context, then a clear 'Args:' section with bullet points. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and some behavioral context (efficiency, rate limits). However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or what the output schema returns, leaving minor gaps for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all parameters: 'proposals' is explained with a list of required/optional fields and character limits, 'model_name' specifies default application and per-proposal override, and 'bot_id' notes optionality and scope. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Submit multiple term proposals in a single batch request.' It specifies the verb ('submit'), resource ('term proposals'), and scope ('batch'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'propose_term' by emphasizing efficiency for multiple proposals.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Efficiently propose many terms at once instead of calling propose_term repeatedly.' It names the alternative ('propose_term') and provides a rationale (avoiding API rate limits), giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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