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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the disclosure of result ordering ('newest first'), the status value set, and per-row contents (amount, currency, advertisement_id, history). It does not mention pagination behavior, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 dense sentence with the read-only marker and ordering front-loaded; every clause carries information (resource, order, filters, row shape). No waste.

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 summarizes the returned row fields, which is exactly what the agent needs. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for page/per_page, the only meaningful omission for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain customer_id/customer_uuid and enumerates valid status values, which the schema (a bare nullable string) does not. However, page and per_page (with defaults 1 and 50) are left entirely undocumented by both schema and description.

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 (offers/proposals), plus ordering ('newest first') and filter scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_customer_proposal, send_customer_proposal, and set_customer_proposal_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the optional filters ('optionally of one customer ... or one status'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings such as list_customer_contracts/list_customer_invoices or any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing inference to the agent.

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