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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact, the fixed 20-item window, but is silent on whether older proposals are reachable or whether the list is truncated, paginated, or ordered.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the 20-item cap) is stated immediately. Nothing is wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, a single sentence is close to sufficient, and it does sketch the return shape (proposals with status). What is missing is whether 20 is a hard ceiling and how to reach anything older, which matters for a tool whose name implies a full list.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of 'status' does hint at what each item carries, which is a small bonus.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list live proposals) plus scope ('your last 20') and returned content ('their status'). It does not distinguish itself from the singular sibling get_live_proposal or cancel_live_proposal, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single relationship.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_live_proposal for a single proposal. The agent gets the 'what' but must work out the 'when' from the name alone.

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