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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, and the description adds non-redundant behavior: returns at most 20 most-recent pending proposals and explains that amounts are in MAJOR units and should be passed through as-is for relative edits. No contradiction with 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 sentences front-load the core function, then give usage context, then provide result and unit constraints. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this is complete: it specifies return scope, recency ordering, the 20-item cap, and the unit semantics needed for downstream propose tools. All required invocation knowledge is present.

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 has no parameters (schema properties {}), so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Schema coverage is 100% by construction, and the description appropriately omits parameter explanation.

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?

Uses a specific action verb and resource: 'List your currently-pending proposals' and defines what pending means (made but not confirmed/cancelled). This makes it easy to distinguish from the propose_* and confirm_proposal siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use when the user asks to change one of several pending proposals, so only the affected one is re-proposed. It does not name a when-not-to-use alternative, but the stated scenario is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only list tool.

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