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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior the annotations do not: newest-first ordering and the authentication requirement (a Cotlet API key with access to this app), which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates, restating 'newest first' and the returned fields twice, which wastes space on a short definition. The genuinely additive parts (status filter, cancel_proposal handoff, API key requirement) are buried at the end rather than 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value summary, ordering, auth requirement and the downstream handoff to cancel_proposal. Only pagination behavior (cursor loop) is left implicit, a minor gap.

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%, so limit, cursor and status are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds only a thin semantic gloss (status 'still waiting' = pending) and otherwise repeats the schema, so no credit above baseline.

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 the proposals you sent) plus the fields returned (project, price, buyer acceptance status), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The scope 'proposals you sent' implicitly separates it from peopleperhour_list_offers, but no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 concrete usage direction: use the status filter to surface proposals still waiting, and it cross-references the sibling cancel_proposal as the consumer of proposal_id. It does not explain when to prefer this list over the related list_offers/list_workstreams calls, so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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