contract_renewal_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'does not count against your monthly draft limit,' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits other traits like email delivery or response handling. The benefit noted adds moderate value beyond the obvious write operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, tone/contents, and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the email's content and tone. It does not explain the output format, which is self-evident (the drafted email), but could more explicitly state what the agent should expect to receive.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the general email structure (work done, terms, invitation) but does not link to individual parameters, so value added is marginal.

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 explicitly states 'Write a professional email proposing to renew a contract, retainer, or ongoing engagement with a client.' This clearly identifies the action (write) and the resource (renewal email), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cold_pitch' or 'invoice_reminder'.

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 implies when to use this tool (for renewal proposals), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools and the name provide sufficient clarity, but a direct contrast with other email tools would improve this score.

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