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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: authorization is via an opaque capability receipt, and the publication rule is strict — only an exactly merged commit counts as published, with proposed/reviewed states never exposed as public.

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, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The receipt-authorization clause is slightly dense but every sentence carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the read-only single-parameter shape keeps the burden low. What is missing is the receipt lifecycle — how to acquire one and what an invalid receipt produces — which matters for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single required parameter, and the schema only conveys a length/character pattern. The phrase "opaque capability receipt" does clarify what the value is conceptually, but the description never says where the agent obtains a receipt (presumably from community_propose) or what an invalid/expired receipt yields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Return the proposal status") and makes clear this is a read of status keyed to a capability receipt, which separates it from community_propose and community_get. It never explicitly names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus community_propose or community_get, and no precondition such as 'use after community_propose returns a receipt'. The usage is only implied by the tool name.

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