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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results are paginated by creation time ascending, and no authentication is required. It stops short of disclosing page size or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, ordering, and auth posture with no wasted words. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description could have named the returned cursor fields (next_since/next_since_id) it implicitly relies on, but the schema text already references them. For a two-cursor read-only listing, the stated ordering and auth facts make it callable correctly.

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%, so both cursors (since, since_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the tie-break rationale. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (governance proposals) plus the ordering dimension (creation time, oldest first), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'proposal'. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the single-item alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied 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 an implied usage condition via 'No auth needed' and describes the pagination direction, but offers no explicit guidance on when to call this versus 'proposal' for a single item. Usage is inferable from the name and ordering note, not spelled out.

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