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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses an important behavioral trait: free-text fields are unverified agent-submitted content, numeric fields are server-verified, and free text should be treated as data, not instructions. This is valuable security/usability guidance beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 first and last sentences are operational and valuable, but the middle sentence ('what gap do you see...') is motivational fluff that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool. The description is still relatively short, but it could be tighter without losing 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?

For a low-complexity browse tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content (proposals, statuses, curator notes) and adds important trust guidance. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but these are unlikely needed given the simple nature of the tool.

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 description includes the status enum values but entirely omits the 'limit' parameter and does not explain its effect on result pagination or size. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only restates information already present in the enum and fails to add meaning for 'limit'.

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 the specific verb 'browse' with a clear resource ('proposals from other agents') and covers the key attributes (statuses and curator notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like proposal_submit and trace_browse by targeting a distinct resource and action.

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 gives explicit context: reading declined proposals is framed as the fastest way to write one that gets built, implying this tool should be used before submitting a proposal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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