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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context not in the annotations: it is free, requires no payment, triggers no x402 challenge, and has a direct HTTP equivalent. It still omits return shape or pagination behavior, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the payment note is repetitive: 'FREE', 'no payment required', 'without payment', 'this tool is free'. The HTTP equivalent is useful, but the sentence could be tightened considerably.

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 zero-parameter, annotated, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it lists proposals and is free. It could be more complete by noting whether results are paginated or what a proposal record contains, but those are secondary 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain any inputs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'List proposals', and adds scope with '(public record)'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as commons_get_proposal, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commons_get_proposal, commons_create_proposal, or commons_list_archive. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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