rate_card_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the email's tone ('no apologising, no burying the number') and that it does not affect draft limits. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether the email is saved or sent) or authorization needs, but the generative nature is clear.

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 a single paragraph but well-organized: purpose first, then usage distinctions, then parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more structured for quick scanning. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 should clarify return value (e.g., generated email text). The description omits what the tool outputs, which is a gap. However, the input and purpose are thoroughly covered, and the sibling context is clear. The missing output detail prevents a higher score.

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 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of each optional parameter (e.g., rate_context as 'one sentence on what is included'), providing examples, and giving usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 writes a professional email for prospects asking about rates, with specific verb ('write') and resource ('email'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools `draft_proposal` and `rate_increase_email`, ensuring the agent selects the correct tool.

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 provides explicit when-to-use: 'when a prospect asks what are your rates?' and when-not-to-use by contrasting with `draft_proposal` and `rate_increase_email`. It also notes it 'does not count against your monthly draft limit,' adding usage context.

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