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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover the tool's non-destructive nature. The description adds a privacy note about account IDs never being exposed, which is useful context but not a comprehensive behavioral description. No contradiction with annotations.

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 highly concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose, key fields, and a usage tip. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple read operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is read, a usage condition, and a privacy guarantee. It lacks explicit error handling or return format details, but these are not critical for basic usage. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in most scenarios.

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 schema already fully describes each parameter with examples and constraints. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., detail=full for voting, id refers to proposal) but relies heavily on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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 that the tool reads a proposal and lists specific fields to retrieve. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_space or get_claim by focusing on proposal data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides a specific usage hint (Use detail=full before voting) but does not elaborate on when to prefer this tool over other retrieval tools or explain broader usage context. The guidance is minimal.

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