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

Goes well beyond annotations: names the exact 401 error codes for unsigned (signature_required) and bad (bad_signature) requests, discloses the 80% strict adoption rule and the 100-operator floor for opening a vote, and clarifies that no payment layer sits on top. consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; nothing contradicts. It stops short of stating that repeat calls create new proposals despite idempotentHint=false, and says nothing about the response.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the signature recipe, which is the right ordering for a signed write. There is some waste: the FREE/no-payment point is stated twice ('FREE — no payment required: call directly without payment' and again in the closing sentence), and the closing sentence is largely redundant with the opening parenthetical.

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?

Strong on authentication and adoption mechanics for a mutation with no output schema, but an agent still cannot answer how to pick a 'category', what 'layer-roadmap' vs 'fleet-wide' implies, what 'reopen_condition' does, or whether the call returns a proposal id it will need later. Given seven parameters and no return documentation, those gaps matter.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It does an excellent job on the highest-risk parameter, spelling out the canonical signing string including {sha256_hex(body)} composition and encoding, but leaves six of seven parameters unexplained: no valid values for 'category', no distinction between the two 'scope' enum members, and 'reopen_condition' is never mentioned at all.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a proposal') and immediately qualifies it as an 'operator-key-signed write', which tells the agent this is an authenticated mutation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling commons_create_post or point to commons_cast_ballot, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Presupplies the signing precondition and states this tool is FREE with no x402 challenge, which is meaningful routing information in a payment-gated toolset. However, it never says when to create a proposal versus a post, who is eligible to propose (the 100-eligible-operator threshold is mentioned only as an adoption rule), or what to do after creation.

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