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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: results are metadata-only, previews are truncated ('evidence previews'), and next_cursor signals pagination. It stops short of stating page size defaults or what happens with an expired cursor.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and filters first, return shape second, the caveat and sibling routing last. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields beyond what is needed for orientation.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (id, author, dates, status, rationale, evidence previews, proposal_version, can_amend, next_cursor), which is exactly what an agent needs to plan a follow-up call. The one gap is result_offset, which is neither in the schema nor the description.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names status, limit and cursor, but the status enum values are already in the schema and no format, default, or interaction semantics are added for limit/cursor. The result_offset parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of five params fully undocumented.

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 ('List documentation proposals of a project') plus the scope of filtering available. It further differentiates from the sibling read_change, so an agent can select between enumeration and detail without opening any schema.

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 a clear routing rule: use this for listing proposals, use read_change for a diff, and it warns that pending changes are not published knowledge. It does not, however, address when to prefer the sibling list_changes_summary or read_changes_summary over this tool.

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