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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by explaining that failed/partly failed proposals carry an error_code and spelling out three concrete codes with their operational meaning (nothing_to_send, payload_changed_since_approval, approver_lost_permission), which materially shapes how an agent reacts.

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 purpose and status list, then the usage cue, then error semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the error_code enumeration is on the long side relative to a simple list tool.

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 usefully discloses one important return field (error_code on failures), which an agent would otherwise not know to look for. The remaining gap is pagination/limit behavior and site_id scoping, which are relevant for a list endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only touches the status dimension and does so incompletely (listing 6 of the 10 enum values actually available, omitting executing, partially_succeeded, superseded and cancelled). Neither limit nor site_id is mentioned at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 resource (proposed actions) plus the status dimension, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling propose_* write tools. An agent can identify this as the read-side counterpart of the proposal workflow without opening the 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?

"Use it to see what the user approved or skipped" gives a clear when-to-use context, and the error_code guidance implies a follow-up workflow (re-propose, or tell the user). However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, so it stops 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.