feegow_get_proposal_url

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It indicates a read operation (HTTP GET) and specifies the endpoint, but does not mention authorization, error handling, rate limits, or what the URL response looks like. Lacks depth beyond the basic action.

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, short sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more structured but achieves conciseness.

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 and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a tool that returns a URL. It does not describe the response format, error cases, or any constraints on the ID. Minimal completeness for a simple fetch operation.

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 documents both parameters. The description adds context by mentioning 'proposta_id' as the identifier, but no extra semantics beyond the schema. The 'query' parameter is for additional parameters, not elaborated.

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 retrieves a proposal URL given an ID, with specific verb 'Lista a URL' and resource 'proposta'. It differentiates from sibling tools like feegow_list_proposals (lists all proposals) and feegow_create_proposal (creates a proposal), as it fetches a specific URL.

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 use for getting a proposal's URL when the ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like feegow_list_proposals (for multiple proposals) or feegow_change_proposal_status. No exclusions or conditions provided.

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