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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics beyond that: what a proposal is (a reviewable set of schema changes stored on its own variant), the status vocabulary, and that a total count is returned for the filter. It does not mention pagination limits or rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of 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 purpose, then definition, then routing, then parameters — a sensible order. The returned-field enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item is meaningful; there is no filler.

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 a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description need not explain return structure, and it still gives enough about filtering, paging, required input and the sibling handoff for an agent to call this correctly. Nothing essential 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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: graphId is called out as required, and the optional status, sourceVariant, subgraph, limit and offset parameters are all described in prose. It omits the limit/offset defaults (20 and 0), which only the schema defaults convey, so it falls just short of fully compensating.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List the schema proposals on a graph') and then enumerates exactly what each item contains, including the five status values. It is clearly distinguishable from GetProposal, which the description says returns revisions and reviews for a single proposal.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use this tool to list/filter, and 'Pass a proposal's id to GetProposal for its revisions and reviews.' It also states the required graph ID and lists the optional filter axes, so the when-to-use and the alternative are both stated.

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