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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds that results are bounded previews and mentions ballot-version/full-effect context, which is useful. However, it does not explain return shape, pagination, or ordering, but there is 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 very short and has no filler, which is good. But the fragments are cryptic and under-specified, especially 'id=space' and 'for your ballot version and full effect'. Brevity is achieved at the cost of clarity, so it cannot score higher.

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 no output schema and five parameters covering pagination, detail levels, cursors, and token budgets, the description must explain expected behavior. It omits the list result shape, cursor semantics, and how detail levels map to outputs, and the read-by-ID phrase makes the intended behavior even less clear. This is inadequate 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively confuses the id parameter: 'id=space' suggests a space resource, while 'Read a proposal by ID' suggests a proposal ID. It does not add useful clarity beyond the schema and may mislead an agent about which ID to supply.

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 says 'Bounded proposal previews' but then 'Read a proposal by ID', mixing list semantics with single-fetch semantics. It never clearly identifies the resource being listed, and 'id=space' is ambiguous (space ID vs proposal ID). This conflicts with the tool name and the sibling get_space_proposal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this list tool versus get_space_proposal, list_space_entries, or other alternatives. The 'Read a proposal by ID' phrase actively suggests get-style usage rather than listing, so an agent cannot reliably decide when to invoke this tool.

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