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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping trait that only proposals already sent to customers are returned and enumerates the possible status values, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination or result ordering.

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 dense sentence with the scope filter ('already sent to customers') front-loaded ahead of the field list. No filler, though the fragment style reads more like a schema excerpt than a description.

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 simple read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It omits return-format/pagination details and any indication of how the customer and limit filters behave, which the low schema coverage does not fill in.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate and does partially: the status enumeration (sent/viewed/accepted/declined/expired/superseded) clarifies the values the status filter accepts. The limit and customer parameters, including the max-50 constraint, are not addressed in the description.

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 names the resource (proposals already sent to customers) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows roughly what comes back. However, it never states an explicit verb and only weakly scopes the tool, leaving it hard to distinguish from siblings like list_proposal_templates, preview_proposal, or find_quotes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite several closely-related siblings (list_proposal_templates, preview_proposal, find_quotes). The 'already sent' phrasing implies a filter, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given.

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