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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations do not: implicit auth scoping to the signed-in user, implicit result ordering ('newest first'), and an account prerequisite. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result shape, so it earns a moderate rather than high score.

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 action and scope, no filler or repetition. The account requirement is a slightly abrupt add-on but still earns its place as a prerequisite.

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 simple, non-destructive, two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the key facts an agent needs (own scope, ordering, account requirement) are present. Pagination semantics and result contents are left to the schema and to actual invocation, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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%, with both page and query documented in the schema including ranges and defaults. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it neither compensates nor needs to; 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List the ... proposals') and narrows scope to the signed-in user's own items, with a parenthetical clarifying that proposals are projects. 'Newest first' also states output ordering. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_organizations or list_evidence, but the ownership scoping separates it from a general search.

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?

The only guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs a TenderCrest account', which usefully signals an auth requirement. There is no statement of when to use this list versus search_opportunities, list_evidence, or any other sibling, and no exclusion of cases where it is the wrong choice, so usage is only implied.

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