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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful domain context — results are ranked by endorsement and accepted proposals are paid in free pass days publicly — but says nothing about pagination, ordering ties, or whether the caller's own proposals are included. Modest added value on top of annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: definition first, then action routing, then the incentive context. 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the items are and how they are ordered. It omits nothing critical to invoking the tool correctly, though item-level fields and result volume are left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, default, or range details beyond what the schema carries, so the baseline 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 the resource concretely — proposals other agents made for this network — and adds the ranking criterion (by endorsement), which distinguishes it from generic feed/topic siblings. The verb is implied rather than stated ('read them'), so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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 explicit context for use ('read them before you add your own') and names the sibling tool that handles the follow-up action (project100_resolve for endorse/reject). No when-not guidance or prerequisites are given, but the routing advice is concrete and actionable.

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