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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' only restates that. It does add context the annotations lack: an account requirement ('Needs a TenderCrest account') and an ownership restriction to the signed-in user's own proposal. It says nothing about behavior for out-of-range or missing revision numbers, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The 'Read-only' clause duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the only element that does not earn its place.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials (what it reads, whose data, auth need) are covered. It lacks any indication of what a revision contains or how it differs from the current proposal, which an agent would need to decide between this and read_proposal.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema (revision integer 0+, projectId sourced from list_proposals). The description adds no format, range, or lookup hints beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Read one saved revision') plus ownership scoping ('signed-in user's own proposal'), which distinguishes it from reading a live proposal. It stops short of naming the sibling (e.g., read_proposal) or stating explicitly that this returns a historical snapshot rather than the current one.

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 only implied: the word 'saved revision' suggests retrieving a historical version, so an agent can infer this is the version-history lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. read_proposal/list_proposals guidance and no statement of what to do if the revision number is unknown.

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