retainer_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool does not count against monthly draft limit, a useful behavioral trait, but does not explain whether the email is automatically sent, saved as draft, or just generated. More behavioral details (e.g., required permissions, action after generation) would improve transparency.

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 brief yet comprehensive, using a bullet list for key points. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then lists covered items efficiently.

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 has 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality, covered topics, and a key behavioral note (draft limit). It does not describe the output format or how the generated email is used, but it is reasonably complete for a generation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context like defaults and optional behavior (e.g., 'If omitted, a generic description is used'), but this is marginal improvement over the schema. Baseline is 3 due to full coverage, and description adds some value.

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 a specific verb ('Write a professional email') and resource ('retainer proposal'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools by focusing on converting a one-off engagement into a retainer. It lists covered aspects, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 states when to use (convert one-off to retainer) and what it covers (scope, hours, fee, rollover, notice period). It also notes it doesn't count against draft limit. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or direct to alternatives, though the sibling context is extensive.

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