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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'This tool is read-only and cannot approve or reject proposals.' It adds beyond annotations by specifying returned fields, ordering ('newest first'), and where approvals happen, providing useful behavioral context.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return fields, then behavioral constraints and user guidance. Every sentence contributes value with 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?

For a simple list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, returned fields, ordering, read-only nature, and user approval path. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; minor details like pagination are not essential here.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful detail about the status or company parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only loosely refers to 'a company's' proposals and 'proposed or completed' statuses.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List a company's proposed or completed bookkeeping changes, newest first.' It also enumerates returned fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_loops, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context and an explicit exclusion: it is read-only and cannot approve or reject proposals, and it points users to the Caribooks portal Review tab or daily digest link for those actions. It does not, however, explain when to choose this tool over related tools such as list_loops.

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