isProposalMessage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'checks' something, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what constitutes a 'proposal message', the criteria for the check, or the output format (e.g., boolean, detailed validation). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and results.

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, clear sentence: 'Checks if a given object is a proposal message.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple validation tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 the tool's complexity (a validation check with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'proposal message' is, the validation logic, or the return value (e.g., true/false, error details). For a tool that likely returns a boolean or status, the lack of output information makes it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'proposal' documented as 'The ATC exemption proposal.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on the object's structure or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.

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: 'Checks if a given object is a proposal message.' It specifies the verb ('checks') and the resource ('proposal message'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many siblings, such as 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption', which might involve similar proposal-related operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., when a proposal message needs validation), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption'. This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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