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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: reviews of earlier revisions are flagged outdated, and the diff and review text are explicitly labeled untrusted content from other members, which is actionable prompt-injection guidance an agent would not get from the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the return payload is front-loaded and the trust warning is appended as a compact second sentence. The first sentence is dense but every clause carries information, so nothing needs trimming.

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schema present, return structure need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the payload and adds the outdated-review and untrusted-content caveats. Only the miss on usage guidance relative to the many city_room_* siblings leaves a gap.

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%, and the schema itself documents room_id as uuid-or-slug and proposal as id-or-number. The description's 'by id or number' mirrors the schema's anyOf without adding format, lookup, or fallback detail, so the baseline of 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 ('Read one proposal by id or number') and enumerates exactly what is returned: full diff, base commit, per-file base blobs, and reviews. The singular 'one proposal' implicitly separates it from the list sibling city_room_proposals, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 usage by stating it reads a single proposal keyed by id or room number, which tells an agent this is a targeted fetch rather than a listing. However, it never states when to prefer this over city_room_proposals, city_room_read, or city_room_evidence, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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