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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'Returns up to 20 most-recent pending proposals' (pagination/limit) and 'Amounts in summaries are in MAJOR units — pass them through to the propose tools as-is for relative edits' (unit convention and integration guidance). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then the usage scenario, then the behavioral details. No redundant wording or fluff. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

Given the tool is simple (0 params, read-only), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (list of pending proposals), the limit (20), and the unit convention. It does not describe the full structure of each proposal, but since there is no output schema, it might be slightly incomplete. However, the agent can infer proposal structure from sibling propose tools, so this is adequate.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100% vacuously). The baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It focuses on output and usage, which is appropriate.

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 ('List') and the resource ('your currently-pending proposals'), and further clarifies what qualifies as pending ('proposals you've made that the user hasn't confirmed or cancelled yet'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accounts or propose_* by focusing on the specific proposal lifecycle state.

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 a concrete usage scenario: 'Use this when the user asks to change one of several pending proposals so you only re-propose the affected one.' This is explicit guidance on when to invoke it. It does not mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough. Could mention alternatives like confirm_proposal, but the scenario is sufficient.

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