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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', which implies a read operation, but it does not mention pagination, default status behavior, return shape, or any access considerations. The mention of 'décomptes et conclusions provisoires' hints at extra behavior but does not explain it.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, and the core verb-object appears early. However, the appended 'décomptes et conclusions provisoires' is vague and slightly undermines the clarity that conciseness would otherwise provide.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no required arguments, and no output schema. The description plus schema are enough for a basic invocation. Still, with no annotations or output schema, some context about what the returned list contains and whether the filter changes the included fields would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'status', is an enum with an 'optional filter' description. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies; no compensation is required.

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 a specific action ('Lister') and resource ('les propositions'), making the core purpose clear. It also mentions output-related items (décomptes, conclusions provisoires), but the relationship between these and the listed proposals is somewhat ambiguous and not differentiated from the single-proposal sibling get_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?

No guidance is given about when to use list_proposals instead of get_proposal, create_proposal, or submit_proposal. The optional status filter is present in the schema but the description does not mention it or indicate default behavior, so the tool's use context is left entirely to inference.

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