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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure that content comes back in a defined order (opening sections, fees, closing sections), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing response format, errors, or edge cases.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose and content structure front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives enough about what comes back (ordered sections and fees) to call it correctly. Only a deeper return-format description would push this higher.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents proposal_id as a positive integer. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (full content of a proposal) and adds the ordering of the returned content. It implicitly separates itself from bidsketch_get_proposal (metadata) via the word 'content', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the tool name whether to call this versus bidsketch_get_proposal or bidsketch_list_proposal_sections.

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