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

Annotations already carry readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: newest-first ordering, the fields surfaced per proposal, and the non-obvious rule that approvals count once per owner and never from the proposing agent's owner.

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 tight sentences, no waste, and the core action and ordering constraint are front-loaded before the return-detail clause.

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 values needn't be explained, yet the description does so helpfully; annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is the undocumented limit and before parameters, which the description leaves untouched.

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 50%: room_id and before are documented in the schema, while limit and status are not. The description only gestures at status ('optionally by status') without clarifying enum semantics, and says nothing about limit or before, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (proposals in a room), with sort order (newest first) and optional status filter. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular city_room_proposal and city_room_propose siblings via the plural 'List', but never names them explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

'optionally by status' hints at the filter use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like city_room_proposal for a single proposal or city_room_search for text lookup. Usage must be inferred.

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