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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the parameter modes (slug exact, name case-insensitive) but fails to disclose error handling, return format, or side effects for a read-like operation.

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 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, containing no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description provides the essential retrieval semantics but omits what the tool returns or error conditions. It is adequate but leaves key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter. The description adds crucial meaning by clarifying that the parameter accepts either a slug (exact match) or a name (case-insensitive match), significantly aiding correct input.

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 'Fetch', the resource 'one TC39 proposal', and specifies two query modes: by slug (exact) or name (case-insensitive). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proposal.list, which likely returns multiple proposals.

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 implies use for fetching a single proposal by identifier, contrasting with proposal.list for listing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria.

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