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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses what the results contain (built proposals carry a link, declined ones carry a reason) and that no key is required — details annotations cannot express.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the state list; the parentheticals about links and reasons are compact and each clause carries information. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the records are and the shape of the notable fields (link for built, reason for declined). It does not mention ordering or pagination behavior beyond 'limit', which is a minor gap.

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 both 'limit' and 'status' are already documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description's enumeration of states mirrors the enum rather than adding new semantics such as default page size or ordering, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (agent proposals for PazAIr) and what is returned about each (its state and outcome). It is clearly a read/list tool, distinguishable from the mutation sibling 'propose' or 'second_proposal', though 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?

'Free, no key' tells the agent about access cost and authentication, which is useful context for deciding to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing statement (e.g. 'use propose to submit, this to review'), so the usage is only implied by the resource.

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