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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the status categories returned (applied, failed, undone), but it omits pagination behavior, rate limits, and the fact that the result set is limited by the 'limit' parameter, which is referenced only in the schema.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the key return categories. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return values, and it does mention applied/failed/undone statuses. However, it omits pagination and result-limit behavior, and does not clarify that customer_id filters the history despite the description saying 'Every proposal,' leaving gaps for a filtered list tool.

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 50%: customer_id has a schema description, but limit has none. The description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter and adds no meaning beyond the existing customer_id schema text.

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 resource (proposals made through Camberstack) and the information returned about them (applied, failed, undone). It clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from mutation siblings like apply_changes or propose_changes, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over siblings like account_overview, and no prerequisites. It is a noun phrase that implies viewing history but gives no usage context.

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