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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: the proposal is immutable (cannot be edited later) and the tool does not deploy anything. This gives an agent a clear understanding of side effects (no actual changes, just a proposal submission). It does not mention permissions, errors, or reversibility, but for a creation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and the key constraint. No waste.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid request without additional context about what constitutes a valid proposal and the role of each parameter.

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% and the description does not explain any of the parameters (client_id, title, body, poll_id). The agent must guess what 'site improvement' means and what the body/title should contain, and what poll_id is for. This is a serious gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Propose') and the resource ('an immutable site improvement for administration review'). It explicitly distinguishes from deployment tools by saying 'does not deploy anything', and the word 'immutable' conveys that the proposal cannot be altered. This differentiates it from siblings like complete_proposal or other action tools.

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 phrase 'for administration review' and 'does not deploy anything' imply that this tool is used to create a proposal for review, not to execute changes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With siblings like complete_proposal, the context is clear enough, but exclusions are not spelled out.

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