contractor_nda_cover_email

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Does not count against your monthly draft limit', which is valuable for resource management. It also clarifies the tone ('without being heavy or legalistic'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool returns the email text or sends it, nor does it discuss authentication or rate limits, but the context (cover email) implies text generation, which is reasonable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action: 'Write the short covering email...'. The description is moderately concise, with each sentence providing distinct value. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., combining some optional parameter notes), but overall well-structured and 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 no output schema, the description acknowledges the output implicitly (the email). It covers purpose, audience, content, and key parameters. With 5 parameters (1 required) and no nested objects, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool correctly, though it could explicitly state the return format.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining each optional parameter in context: e.g., `project_description` is 'brief note on the project the NDA covers', `relationship` defaults to 'client', `signing_method` gives examples. This adds practical guidance beyond the schema descriptions, enhancing usability for an AI agent.

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 it writes a covering email to accompany an NDA, using specific verbs ('write') and resource ('covering email'). It distinguishes from sibling tools `nda_template` (generates the NDA) and `subcontractor_brief` (briefs a subcontractor), giving a unique identity.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: sending NDA to client or subcontractor. Provides when-not-to-use by naming alternatives (`nda_template` for the NDA itself, `subcontractor_brief` for briefing). Also explains what the email covers (why sending, what it covers, what to do) without being legalistic, guiding the agent on appropriate context.

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