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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the sentence 'Read-only' merely restates that. It does add useful context beyond the annotations: the account requirement and the ownership restriction to the caller's own proposals, which bears on auth/authorization expectations. It says nothing about ordering, result limits, or pagination behavior despite a page parameter existing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource, and scope – nothing superfluous. The enumeration of record kinds mildly duplicates the schema enum but is cheap and aids scanning.

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, three-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and prerequisites adequately. It leaves open what a returned record contains and how pagination behaves (the schema caps page at 1000 but the description doesn't mention defaults or result size), which an agent might need.

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 67% and the one undescribed parameter (kind) is self-documenting via its enum, which the description simply echoes without adding meaning. The only added value is clarifying that projectId must be the user's own proposal, reinforcing the schema note pointing to list_proposals.

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 saved records') plus the scope ('for one of the signed-in user's own proposals') and enumerates the five record kinds. This makes clear it operates inside a single proposal, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_proposals, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('Needs a TenderCrest account') and a scope constraint (only the signed-in user's own proposals), which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It never names an alternative or an exclusion case, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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