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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does a solid job by spelling out exactly what the response contains (status, timeline, quorum/approval arithmetic, on-chain and gov.near.org links, proposal text). It omits error behavior — e.g. what happens when an id does not resolve — and says nothing about access or caching, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload description before the input instruction, and no filler. The first sentence is a long multi-clause list, but each clause adds a distinct returned field rather than padding.

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 must describe return values and does so thoroughly for this read tool. The remaining gap is failure handling for malformed or unresolved proposal identifiers, which is a minor but real omission for a lookup tool.

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% and the schema already lists both accepted forms ('27', '#27', 'HSP-027', 'HSP 27'), so the description's restatement of those examples adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; nothing about the parameter's constraints or edge cases is added.

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?

The description names a specific resource (a single NEAR House of Stake proposal) and enumerates its contents — status, timeline, vote/quorum arithmetic, chain and forum links, proposal text. The singular 'One ... proposal in full' plus the field list cleanly separates it from list_proposals without needing to name the 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?

Usage is only implied: fetching one proposal by id is obviously the use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over list_proposals or search/semantic_search, nor any exclusions. The input guidance ('Pass the on-chain id or the HSP number') is the only concrete instruction.

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