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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, it discloses authentication requirements, mutual-exclusion failure behavior, not-found behavior, and the existence of a promise in the response. It also explains that deploy should only proceed once this tool says approved.

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 front-loaded and organized with When, Instead, Inputs, Returns, and Fails sections. Every line adds operational value, and there is no filler.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers selection semantics, return shape, failure cases, auth needs, and timing. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing additional context.

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 the schema already defines id and site, but the description adds meaningful constraints: id and site are mutually exclusive, neither means every proposal, and site also returns that site's mode. This goes beyond the schema without being fully exhaustive about value ranges or formats.

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 states a specific verb and resource: lists proposals, either all, by id, or by site, and includes site approval mode. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming clickd_propose for creating proposals and clickd_todo for the work itself.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: use before work on a claimed site and repeatedly after clickd_propose until answered. It also names alternatives directly, routing creation to clickd_propose and work details to clickd_todo.

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