atcExemptProposal

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, return value, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits. It only states the action, leaving the agent without insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the simple functionality and front-loads the key 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 the niche nature of ATC exemption proposals and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description offers no context about what the proposal is, when to use this retrieval versus atcRequestExemption, or what the response contains. It is too sparse for an agent navigating many related ATC tools.

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?

The schema fully describes markerId, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does imply the proposal is retrieved for the given marker.

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 'retrieves' and a clear resource 'ATC exemption proposal', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like atcRequestExemption that imply creation or submission. It clearly states what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or context provided. The description is purely a statement of function without any usage direction.

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