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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description goes further by disclosing the authorization-based row visibility, the 100-per-call return ceiling, and cursor pagination. That is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the access-scoping rule is front-loaded, filters follow, and alternatives come last. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 9-parameter, no-required-arg list tool with no output schema, it covers scope, filters, pagination, and sibling routing. It stops short of indicating default ordering or what fields each returned row contains, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 it does by enumerating the full filter surface (stage, priority, riskLevel, submittedById, title, sortBy + sortOrder, cursor). Some of that restates schema text (title substring, cursor 'last id'), so it adds breadth more than new per-parameter meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List governance proposals') and immediately adds the distinguishing scope rule: non-reviewers see only their own submissions, reviewers see the whole org. That separates it from get_proposal, list_proposal_reviews, and list_gate_approvals without the agent opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent twice: 'PREFER get_proposal for full detail on one row' and 'PREFER list_gate_approvals for the per-user gate-approval inbox'. This tells the agent both when to use this tool (broad filtered listing) and when a sibling is the better pick.

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