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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — that the returned content is the proposal text only and does not reveal on-chain fate — but says nothing about truncation, size limits, or return shape for large bodies.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded with the core purpose first, then sibling routing, then scope restriction. Every sentence carries routing or scope value, though the sibling enumeration is dense enough that it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does: 'full markdown body', 'Returns only what the proposal SAYS'. Combined with complete sibling routing and scope exclusion, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented with the same example formats ("0001", "CIP-0042", "PR-0117"). The description repeats these examples but adds no syntax or resolution semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (full markdown body of a single CIP), and selector (by ID), with example ID formats. It also disambiguates scope explicitly with 'Returns only what the proposal SAYS', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_cip_vote_outcome and get_cip_history without opening any 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?

Names three alternatives and the exact condition that selects each: get_cip_vote_outcome for on-chain fate, get_cip_history for the status timeline, list_cips for browsing/filtering multiple. It also excludes the wrong ecosystem ('Canton/Daml/Splice only, not Cardano'), leaving nothing to inference.

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