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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the exact content of the list (state, vote tallies, timing, URLs) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or potential errors, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence packs all essential information without waste. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists specifics.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields. 'Recent' is somewhat vague, but the limit parameter and per-proposal URLs provide enough context for a low-complexity list 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?

The sole parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the schema (type, min, max, default), so the description adds no additional semantic value. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List'), the resource ('recent Jestermogger governance proposals'), and the specific details returned (state, vote tallies, timing, URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling get_governance_proposal, which retrieves 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?

The description implies the tool is for browsing recent proposals and provides per-proposal URLs for further lookup, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_governance_proposal for single-proposal details. The context is clear, though exclusion guidance is absent.

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