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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: no auth needed, strict rejection of unknown arguments rather than silent ignoring, and a stable pagination order. That last point matters because a silently dropped argument or unstable ordering would corrupt a paging loop.

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?

Three short sentences with the core operation, ordering, auth status, and argument strictness front-loaded. No filler or repeated information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers invocation, ordering, auth, and cursor discipline. Since there is no output schema, it could briefly say what a proposal record contains, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already explains next_since/next_since_id, the tie-break rationale, and additionalProperties=false. The description only restates which two parameters exist and that others are refused, adding emphasis but no new semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('List governance proposals') plus ordering ('paginated by creation time, oldest first'), which is enough to distinguish it from the singular sibling 'proposal'. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use it to page through proposals oldest-first, no auth required, and only two arguments are accepted. It never names an alternative tool or an exclusion case (e.g. when to use 'proposal' instead), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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