budget_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait 'Counts against your monthly draft limit', which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool modifies an existing proposal, sends the proposal, or requires specific authorization. More detail on side effects would improve transparency.

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 at three sentences. It front-loads the condition and action, then adds value with strategy and policy info. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the use case and trigger well. However, it does not explain what the output is (e.g., a draft proposal text, an email), nor whether the tool sends or saves the proposal. Given no output schema, this gap limits 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the general action. It does not clarify parameter formats or edge cases.

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 specifies the tool writes a revised proposal with reduced scope when a client says the quote is too high. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'discount_request_response' by explicitly stating 'not a rate cut', and from general proposal tools by the specific trigger scenario.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: 'when a client says your quote is too high'. It implicitly advises against using for rate cuts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools (e.g., 'discount_request_response' for discount requests).

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