discovery_call_prep

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

No annotations are provided. The description reveals that the tool is a non-destructive generation tool (does not count against draft limit) and produces structured output. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but the generative nature is conveyed.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that cover purpose, inputs, outputs, workflow position, and a key behavioral note. Every word adds value, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it generates, its place in a workflow, and a non-standard feature (no draft limit). It could be more complete by specifying the output format, but the listed outputs (questions, agenda, confirmation items) are clear enough for an agent to expect appropriate results.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with clear descriptions (brief, analysis, your_service). The description adds a usage hint for analysis and your_service but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: preparing for a discovery call. It specifies the input (brief) and the generated outputs (sharp questions, call agenda, confirmation items). It also positions the tool in the workflow between analyze_brief and draft_proposal, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use between analyze_brief and draft_proposal') and notes that it does not count against the monthly draft limit, which is helpful for resource planning. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context provides a clear usage scenario.

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