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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's main added value is disclosing that the response embeds the latest revision, all reviews with decisions/comments, and a drift indicator ('whether the source variant changed since the proposal was created'). Much of the field enumeration duplicates the existing output schema, 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the cross-tool field mappings, both of which earn their space. The long return-field inventory is partly redundant with the output schema and could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

Covers what is returned, where the input comes from, and how the response feeds named sibling tools – everything an agent needs to call it and chain it correctly. Return-value detail is redundant with the output schema but not harmful.

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 coverage is 0% for the single proposalId parameter, so the description must compensate – and it does, defining the parameter and its provenance via GetProposals. No ambiguity remains about what to pass.

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 ('Read one schema proposal by its ID') and then enumerates the returned content (title, status, author, source/proposal variants, latest revision, reviews, drift flag), which clearly separates it from the list-oriented GetProposals 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 tells the agent where the required ID comes from ('which GetProposals returns') and, unusually, explains which downstream write tools consume which fields from this response (ReviewProposal/AddProposalComment take latestRevision.id, PublishProposalRevision takes backingVariant.latestLaunch.id). That is concrete when/how guidance rather than vague context.

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