Generate Proposal Markdown

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says only that it unifies several data domains; it does not disclose whether it writes a file, returns a Markdown string, validates inputs, or has side effects.

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 efficient sentence, but it is too compressed for a 14-parameter tool and lacks structure that would help an agent map inputs to behavior.

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. Still, for a complex tool with 14 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too incomplete regarding usage, parameter meaning, and behavior.

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% across 14 parameters. The sentence conceptually mentions PERT, buffers, price, calendar, exclusions, and risks, but omits key parameters like client_name, project_title, proposal_id, payment_terms, validity_days, warranty_days, and assumptions, and gives no formats, defaults, or optionality.

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 gives a specific verb ('Unifica') and a list of content domains, which hints at assembling proposal material. However, it never states that it generates Markdown or a proposal document, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling generate_proposal_pdf.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_proposal_pdf or generate_action_plan_markdown. No preconditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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