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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the archive entry is conditional ('when present'), the response bundles four related sub-resources, and the call is free with no x402 challenge — a meaningful disclosure in an ecosystem where other tools apparently charge.

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-loaded with the payload description, then the free-call and endpoint notes. Slightly redundant ('FREE — no payment required' followed by 'this tool is free'), but every sentence otherwise carries information useful to the caller.

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 one-parameter read whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and which has no output schema, the description explains what comes back, the conditional archive entry, and the unusual zero-cost billing behavior. The main residual gap is the expected format/validation of the id.

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?

There is one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The HTTP template GET .../proposals/{id} implies the id is the path-level proposal identifier, but it gives no format (UUID vs slug vs integer) or validity rules, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one proposal') and enumerates the bundled payload: discussion, tally summary, eligibility snapshot, archive entry. This implicitly distinguishes it from the list-style sibling commons_list_proposals and the granular getters (commons_get_tally, commons_get_archive_entry), though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: the composite payload suggests 'use this when you need the whole proposal view in one call,' but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when to call commons_get_tally or commons_get_archive_entry instead. The FREE/payment guidance is billing information, not tool-selection guidance.

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