rate_increase_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 clearly indicates the tool generates a professional email and a notable behavioral trait: it does not count against the monthly draft limit. This gives agents useful execution guidance. However, it does not detail any side effects or limitations beyond that.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a brief note about the draft limit. It immediately communicates the main purpose and includes the most critical information without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 text generation tool with no output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, tone, and a key constraint (draft limit). Minor omission: it does not mention whether the email includes a subject line or the exact format, but that is often inferred.

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%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Write an email') and the specific context ('telling an existing client you are raising your rates'). It distinguishes itself by emphasizing the freelancer context and the sensitive nature, which sets it apart from similar tools like price_increase_email.

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 some usage context (freelancers, anxiety-inducing task) and a unique benefit ('Does not count against your monthly draft limit'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like price_increase_email, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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