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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description does disclose the return structure (ordered writes with metadata) which adds some context, but it falls short of describing potential pitfalls or requirements for a safe invocation.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential details about the output. It is concise without unnecessary fluff. A slight improvement would be to break it into two sentences for readability, but it is appropriately sized.

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 read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a good sense of what is returned (complete record with metadata) and the filter option. However, it lacks details on error conditions, return format specifics, or any prerequisites. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully comprehensive.

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 description covers 50% of parameters (only 'key' has a description). The description adds meaning to 'proposal_id' by referencing 'a proposal's blackboard', clarifying its role. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of 'proposal_id', and the 'key' parameter is already described in the schema. Overall, it provides some added context but not comprehensive compensation for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'read', the resource 'proposal's blackboard', and the output (complete deliberation record or filtered by key). It provides specific content details (timestamp, author, attestation id) that help distinguish it from generic read operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'history' tool, which might overlap in purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'history' or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which an agent should select it over siblings. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the selection to inference.

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