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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return payload (proposal id, creation attestation, deadline), the keying relationship for later calls, and the api_key behavior (binds proposal to account, pushes spans to Telinea; anonymous use works without spans). It does not mention side effects like whether creation is reversible or whether duplicate names fail, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and go beyond a simple 'creates a proposal' statement.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and return values, then adds the keying relationship. It is efficient and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more scannable with line breaks or bullet-like structure.

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 creation tool with 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow context: what is created, what is returned, and how the result is used downstream. It does not explain failure modes, idempotency, or duplicate-name behavior, but the combination of schema and description is adequate for an agent to invoke it 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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds context about the proposal id becoming the key for subsequent calls and the api_key's account-binding behavior, but most parameter semantics are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Open a new proposal') and enumerates the full set of inputs (question, named options, expected voters, aggregation algorithm, deadline, quorum threshold) plus the return values (proposal id, creation attestation, deadline). It also states that all later operations key off the proposal id, which distinguishes it from siblings like vote, resolve, and history.

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 the tool's role clear as the creation entry point and notes that later operations key off the returned proposal id, implying this should be called before vote/resolve/history. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the context is sufficient for an agent to sequence calls correctly.

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