draft_rti_application

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (standard envelope with drafted text) and a liability caveat ("Not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate."). It stops short of describing template variations or jurisdiction assumptions.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then uses clean Args/Returns/Notes sections with one line each. Efficient overall, though the Args block largely duplicates the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it provides sufficient context to call the tool correctly. The one gap is the workflow positioning relative to the appeal-drafting and RTI-calculation siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The Args section merely restates the field names and values (including the already-documented 'general'/'bpl' enum), adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Generate a draft RTI application format") that clearly separates it from generic tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like draft_first_appeal or draft_second_appeal, leaving the AI to infer that this is the initial application.

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?

"Use when you need a boilerplate template for filing an RTI request" gives a general context, but names no alternatives and draws no boundary against the sibling drafting tools (first/second appeal) or the RTI calculators. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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