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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that a number triggers a structured record with specific fields, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the return format for title/topic queries or behavior when no parameters are given. Despite these gaps, it adds meaningful transparency beyond a generic 'lookup'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

The description adequately covers the number path (returns structured ACP record with listed fields) but leaves the title/topic query behavior unclear, such as whether it returns a list and what fields are included. Since no output schema exists, this gap makes the description only partially complete for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The tool description only slightly reinforces the 'number' parameter by explaining the structured record output, but it does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Look up' and resource 'Avalanche Community Proposals' with search dimensions (number, title, topic). It distinguishes from the sibling acp_list which presumably lists all proposals, while this tool targets specific lookups.

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 implies usage: use when needing to find a specific ACP by number, title, or topic. It gives clear context by explaining that providing a number returns a structured record, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like acp_list or state when not to use this tool.

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