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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the review workflow (pending_review, statuses) without contradicting the annotations. It explains what the statuses mean (pending, approved, rejected with reason, failed with why), adding value beyond the annotation's safety hint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the direct purpose ('See what happened to the changes you proposed') and then provides necessary context and status details. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys both when to use and what to expect.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains the review context, the statuses returned, and the purpose. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for a simple list tool, and the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. Per rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which 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 clearly states the tool lists proposals and their statuses, and frames it as checking what happened to proposed changes. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (collections, runs, requests) by focusing on the proposal review workflow.

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 provides context that some workspaces review AI changes and that this tool tells whether a change went through, which implies when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know this is the tool for checking proposal status, not for listing collections or requests.

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