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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't carry: the 'Requires Keeploop Pro' plan gate and the semantic meaning of the 'added' status.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource named first, outcomes enumerated, and the plan requirement appended. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, plan gating, and status meaning; the only gaps are usage routing versus siblings and full enum coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single status param. It lists six of the enum values and explains 'added', but omits the 'all' option and the default 'pending', leaving the filtering semantics partially undocumented.

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 resource (events proposed via propose_event) and their lifecycle outcomes, naming the creating sibling propose_event. It clearly conveys what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling cancel_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?

Usage is implied by the domain framing (viewing what happened to proposals) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The agent must infer context from the description's content alone.

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