get_rfp_response_template

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose return format, side effects (e.g., read-only nature), or any behavioral traits beyond stating it returns a template. The agent gets minimal behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence lists the enum values without any 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and available inputs. It doesn't describe the return format, but the notion of a 'starting-template response' implies a standard structure.

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 input schema defines the 'section' parameter with enum values, but the description adds context by explaining these are 'common RFP sections'. However, it does not describe any additional meaning or constraints beyond re-listing the enum values.

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 action ('returns a starting-template response') and the specific resource ('common RFP section'). It lists all available sections, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from siblings like 'get_competitive_battlecard'.

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 lists the sections but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or when not to use it.

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