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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be non-destructive. The description adds a privacy guarantee ('Returns no personal data') and implies a read-only polling operation. It does not mention rate limits or latency, but with the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single, focused sentence followed by a short advisory. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and status list, and the polling advice is a useful addition. It is not overly verbose, earning a 4.

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 simple status lookup with one parameter, the description covers the key aspects: what the statuses are, the input reference, the read-only nature, and the privacy guarantee. Given the low complexity and that there is no output schema, the description is sufficiently 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 100%, and the schema description includes an example reference. The description mentions 'by its reference', reinforcing the schema's parameter meaning. Since the schema is sufficient and the description adds minimal extra context, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('poll') and resource ('proposal request status'), enumerates the possible statuses (received, being prepared, proposal sent, confirmed, closed), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like request_a_proposal. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

The description offers clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Poll this instead of e-mailing', which indicates a polling use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings and the polling advice provide adequate usage direction.

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