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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (full markdown plus reviewUrl) and how to surface it, but says nothing about permissions, whether the read is scoped by workspace, or what happens when proposalId is omitted. Adequate for a read tool but not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation before the presentation advice. No filler, though the client-display sentence sits slightly awkwardly next to the core definition.

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 return fields (markdown and reviewUrl). Combined with 100% schema coverage on the inputs, an agent has what it needs to call the tool, though the optional proposalId remains ambiguous.

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 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond 'for an edit' and does not clarify the relationship between the required editId and the optional proposalId.

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 the current proposal content for an edit'), which an agent can distinguish from the mutating siblings save_proposal and update_proposal. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the read verb makes the boundary clear.

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?

Implies the context ('for an edit') and gives presentation guidance to external MCP clients (show markdown inline, reviewUrl optional), but never states when to prefer this over update_proposal/save_proposal or what conditions select it. Usage is inferred rather than specified.

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