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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the breadth of returned content (parsed file facts, champion evidence, reviewers, statistics, event timeline) and the 'ONE proposal' scoping constraint. It stops short of return-format or pagination specifics, so 4 rather than 5.

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 the core purpose and the scoping phrase 'ONE ... proposal' before the long enumeration. The enumeration is dense but every clause maps to real returned data; the structure is efficient if slightly run-on.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so comprehensively (state/board column, labels, parsed proposal facts, champion evidence, reviewers, discussion stats, event timeline). An agent knows exactly what it will get and when the result is or isn't the right source.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on a single parameter, the schema already documents 'number' as a PR/issue number with bounds and an example. The description only reinforces that the number comes from a prior list/search call, adding minimal syntax beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('everything CCPEDIA holds about ONE Canton Dev Fund proposal... by its PR number') and enumerates the payload domains it returns. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_proposal_discussion and get_proposal_file, which target subsets of the same entity.

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 states when to use it ('after get_proposals, list_proposals_needing_champion or search_dev_fund returned a number') and names two alternatives with their distinct purposes (full conversation vs. full proposal text). The routing decision is fully deterministic.

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