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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by asserting the content is returned 'exactly as in the PR head,' signaling verbatim, untransformed output. It does not cover size limits or truncation for large files, which keeps it from a 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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first gives scope and file patterns, the second gives multi-file routing, the third gives usage sequencing. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 explaining what is returned, and it does so by enumerating the substantive sections (abstract, specification, milestones, acceptance criteria, funding). Nothing about permissions or error cases is covered, but for a read-only extraction tool this is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the standard baseline is 3. The description's note that a PR may add several files and that path selects one adds mild routing context but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('full text of the proposal file(s) a Canton Dev Fund PR adds') and identifies the exact file patterns (proposals/*.md, rfps/<category>/*.md). It is immediately distinguishable from get_proposal, which it names as the prerequisite sibling.

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 says 'Use after get_proposal when the details matter,' giving both the sequencing condition and the alternative to use when details don't matter. It also clarifies the multi-file case with the routing rule for the path parameter.

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