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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information by stating the response is aggregate counts only, with no proposal content, and enumerating the state buckets returned. It does not explain the result_offset paging behavior for what is nominally a summary, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The return shape is stated first and the routing advice second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does a fair job of compensating by enumerating the count buckets. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the unexplained result_offset is a real gap an agent would hit when calling it. Adequate, but not complete.

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% across two parameters, so the description must carry the load. 'This project's proposals' implies project_id scoping, but result_offset is never mentioned in the description or the schema, leaving its purpose entirely undiscoverable. Only half the surface is compensated for.

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 names a specific verb and resource (counts of this project's proposals) and immediately qualifies the scope with the breakdown (pending, accepted, rejected, total). The clause 'without any content' distinguishes it cleanly from read_change and list_changes, which an agent can tell apart 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 an explicit routing instruction: use it before list_changes to learn how many are waiting for a decision. That names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when per-item detail is already needed), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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