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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' merely repeats structured data. The genuinely additive part is the enumeration of return states (approved / dismissed / pending), which tells the agent this is a non-blocking status check rather than a submission.

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 tight sentences with the core semantics front-loaded and no wasted framing. The only dead weight is the redundant 'Read-only' clause.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and roughly what the id means. It stops short of saying what happens for an unknown or expired proposal id, which would matter for error handling.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'a proposal made by this connection' establishes that the id refers to a proposal and is scoped to this connection, but it gives no format or origin for the id.

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 verb (returns) and resource (status of a proposal) and enumerates the three possible outcomes, which makes the intent unambiguous. It is distinguishable from zarok_propose_changes and zarok_apply_changes by implication, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'made by this connection' hints that this is the follow-up check after zarok_propose_changes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent can infer the polling/verification use case but must do the work itself.

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