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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: only already-sent proposals are returned, implying drafts are excluded. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what 'superseded' means operationally.

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 compact sentence with the noun and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields, which is the right thing to include. It still leaves gaps for a filterable list tool: default sort order, behavior when status/customer are omitted, and what happens past the limit of 50.

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 only 33% (just limit), so the description must compensate, and it partially does by enumerating the valid status values (sent/viewed/accepted/declined/expired/superseded), which the schema omits. However, the customer parameter's matching semantics (exact name vs partial) and the interaction of limit with pagination remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (proposals), and scopes it with 'already sent to customers', which separates it from the sibling list_proposal_templates. It also enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. No explicit sibling routing, hence not a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative tools (list_proposal_templates, preview_proposal), and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The field list hints that results can be narrowed by customer or status, but the description never says to do so.

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