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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the GET endpoint path and the shape of returned data, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about auth/permission requirements, error behavior for a missing id, or response envelope details.

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 the endpoint appended; no filler. The enumeration of returned fields is slightly list-heavy but every term maps to real payload content.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the fields a caller will receive, and annotations handle the read-only trait. Only the sibling-routing and error-behavior gaps keep it from full marks for such a simple single-param tool.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in-schema (positive integer, sourced from bidsketch_list_proposals), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides about proposal_id.

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 ('Get one proposal') and enumerates the payload fields (status, client, currency, fee subtotals, tax/discount, settings, section/fee counts), which lets an agent distinguish it from the lighter lookups. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from near-siblings like bidsketch_get_proposal_content or bidsketch_get_proposal_stats.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one proposal' and the '{id}' endpoint; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_proposal_content, get_proposal_stats, or list_proposals. The schema's reference to bidsketch_list_proposals hints at the lookup flow but the description itself gives no routing guidance.

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