isProposalMessage

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. It states the tool 'Checks' something, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has side effects, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 the tool's simplicity, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output expectations. With no annotations to fill gaps, it provides a basic understanding but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 explain what constitutes a 'proposal message' or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('proposal message'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption'), which might have overlapping domains, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (like 'atcExemptProposal'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or when it should be preferred over others.

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