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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that only the top 3 burners can propose, which is domain context, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the response format is, or any side effects. The description focuses on eligibility logic rather than behavioral details of the tool invocation.

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?

The description is three sentences and relatively concise, but it mixes instructions for an external POST endpoint with the tool's own purpose, making the structure confusing. It could be more streamlined to focus solely on what this MCP tool does.

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 and only a single parameter, the description should clarify the return value structure and how to interpret eligibility. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., boolean, detailed eligibility check), and the misleading hint about POSTing to build calldata leaves the tool's scope incomplete.

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% for the single 'proposer' parameter, and the schema already explains it as a wallet address required for eligibility. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that the GET form returns eligibility for the proposer, so the core function is somewhat clear. However, the tool name 'build_propose_tx' and title 'Build Propose TX / Check Eligibility' create confusion, as the description explicitly says to POST to an endpoint to build calldata, implying this tool does not build transactions. This weakens purpose clarity and fails to properly distinguish from other build_* sibling tools.

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?

The description advises using the tool 'before drafting' a proposal, giving a minimal usage context. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, nor does it name alternative MCP tools for building calldata; instead it refers to an external HTTP POST. This confusion about whether to use this tool or another method makes usage guidelines weak.

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