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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds value by stating it returns a fixed set (all 91 proposals) and lists returned fields, which is consistent with annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but given the limited scope and annotations, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states what the tool does with scope and optional filters, the second explains outputs and next steps. Every sentence is earned and front-loaded with key information. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the output schema exists to document return values, the description covers the essential: scope, filters, returned fields, and usage pattern with sibling tool. The low parameter count (3), no required parameters, and rich annotations make this complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the parameters to the specific document context ('Catalunya 2022 document') and explaining the purpose of the returned slug for use with get_section. The locale parameter is well-described in the schema with clear enum values, so the description's additional context on the default is helpful but not essential.

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 the tool lists all 91 action proposals from a specific document (Catalunya 2022), with optional filtering by sphere or goal. The verb 'list' and resource 'action proposals' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like get_section (for reading full content) and search_document (for searching).

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 description explicitly guides when to use this tool (to list proposals) and what to do next ('Use get_section with the returned slug to read full action content'), effectively differentiating from the sibling get_section tool. It also specifies the optional filters sphereId and goalId, providing clear context for usage.

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