generate_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions output formats but doesn't describe what the generated document contains, whether it's editable, how it's delivered, or any side effects. 'Generate' implies creation but lacks details about permissions, data persistence, or error handling that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 - just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and output formats. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main purpose followed by format options.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'BESS proposal document' contains, how the financial parameters relate to the output, what happens after generation, or any error conditions. The agent would struggle to understand the tool's full context and behavior from this minimal description.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'formats' which corresponds to the 'format' parameter with enum values, but doesn't explain the semantic differences between executive-summary, detailed-proposal, and one-pager formats. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Generate a professional BESS proposal document for a prospect.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('proposal document'), and domain context ('BESS' - Battery Energy Storage System). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_truequote' or 'compare_competitor' which might also generate documents or comparisons.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions three output formats but doesn't explain when to choose each format or when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_truequote' or 'handle_objection'. There's no context about prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or limitations.

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