atcExemptProposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond the basic verb.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves') and resource ('ATC exemption proposal'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal efficiency.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data. It doesn't explain what an 'ATC exemption proposal' entails, the format of the retrieval, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in 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 'markerId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the marker.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 states the tool 'retrieves an ATC exemption proposal', which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcRequestExemption' or 'atcChangeContact', leaving the exact scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this retrieval from related operations.

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. With sibling tools like 'atcRequestExemption' and 'atcChangeContact' present, there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This 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.