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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the chronological ordering, the inclusion of every write and vote with reasoning, and the presence of an outcome filter. It does not mention failure behavior or permissions, but the core read-only behavior and return contents are transparent.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the optional filter is appended cleanly.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter interface and no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and how to optionally filter it. Minor gaps like behavior when the proposal does not exist or how the outcome is represented do not block correct invocation.

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?

The schema already fully documents the filter enum and its default, and the description restates those values with their semantic categories. For proposal_id, the schema only gives a string type, and the description's 'of a proposal' adds minimal context but no format or example. At 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully explain every parameter.

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?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: the complete chronological record of a proposal, including creation, blackboard writes, votes with reasoning, and the outcome. It is clearly differentiated from sibling actions like propose, vote, or write by being an historical read-only aggregation.

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 description makes it clear the tool is for retrieving a proposal's full history, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer history over the sibling read tool or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated with explicit conditions or alternatives.

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