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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the structured fields: reviewer vs non-reviewer visibility scoping and the ENTERPRISE+ plan requirement. It does not describe pagination or result size.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then visibility, then routing to the alternative, then the plan gate. Four dense clauses, none redundant, ordered by importance.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, visibility, routing, and prerequisites. The main gap is that it does not hint at the shape of the returned review records, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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 0% and there is a single required parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It only implies that proposalId refers to 'a governance proposal' without stating accepted format or where to obtain it, so it partially but not fully compensates.

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) plus resource (reviews on a governance proposal) and clarifies scope with the parenthetical '(gate-by-gate decision history)'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_proposal, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Provides explicit routing: 'PREFER get_proposal when you also need the gate-approval (quorum) rows,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also gives a prerequisite ('Plan gate: governance (ENTERPRISE+)') and visibility constraints, though it stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement.

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