proposal_to_email

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool does not count against monthly draft limits, adding useful behavioral info. However, it does not mention other traits like no side effects on the original proposal or auth requirements, which would elevate the score.

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 two tight sentences plus a critical behavioral note, with the main action stated first. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the tool produces (short email with 4 key points), covers all parameters, and adds the draft limit info. For a simple generation tool with only one required param, this is fully complete.

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 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the optional cta parameter behavior (inference if omitted) and the roles of client_name and your_name in greeting/sign-off, going beyond the schema alone.

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 uses specific verbs ('convert', 'distills') and identifies the resource (proposal document) and output (pitch email). It explicitly states the key points included (problem, solution, price, next step) and differentiates from siblings by focusing on existing proposal conversion rather than cold outreach or other email types.

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 usage context (when you have a proposal and want a short client email) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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