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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: the evidence rules (board column plus Champion lines), that a name is the applicant's claim rather than a confirmation, that labels are unreliable, and that 'not stated' does not mean 'none'. These are exactly the semantics an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and orders the rest by evidence rules, disclaimers, and exclusions. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries non-redundant domain knowledge, so it stays efficient without wasting space.

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 still conveys what is returned (proposal-file and PR-text champion info, oldest first, full count), how filtering works, and the interpretation caveats for missing data. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 rfp, limit, and offset are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning for these parameters, so the 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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource (open Canton Dev Fund proposals sitting in the Needs Champion or Incoming board columns with no confirmed champion). The scope, ordering (oldest first), and domain (Canton-specific) are all named, so an agent can distinguish it from get_proposals, list_stuck_proposals, and search_dev_fund.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (proposals that stall without a champion/sponsor) and states exclusions (SIG-membership PRs are excluded) plus an explicit when-not-evidence rule (needs-champion and champion-confirmed labels are deliberately not used). It does not, however, name a sibling tool to use instead, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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