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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are limited to proposals the user created and include review status, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or default filtering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, scope, and returned attribute. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description could carry more about the shape of returned proposals, and the status filter's default behavior is undocumented. For a one-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 coverage is 0% for the single status parameter, but its enum values (DRAFT, ACCEPTED, REJECTED, CREATED) are largely self-explanatory. The description hints at 'review status' without explaining how the status filter maps to those enum values or what happens when it is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list proposals) and narrows scope to OKR and strategic goal proposals 'you have created' with their review status. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_objectives or list_strategic_goals, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g., list_objectives for accepted objectives), and no mention of prerequisites or the default filter behavior. The 'you have created' phrasing implies a personal scope but never states when to prefer this tool.

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