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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses what the tool returns: full chain, ordering, field diffs, surface-only flags, and evidence association. This provides comprehensive behavioral expectations without contradictions.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main result (supersession chain) and appends specific details in a clear list. Every component adds value without wasted words.

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 low complexity (one required parameter), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely adequate. It describes what the tool returns in sufficient detail for an agent to decide to invoke it and understand the output format.

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% with a single parameter 'slug', described as 'The proposal slug.' The description adds no further parameter details, but with full schema coverage and a straightforward parameter, the description's brevity is acceptable. Score 4 because the description still helps clarify the parameter's role in context of the tool's purpose.

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 'get' and the resource 'a proposal's full supersession chain', specifying ordering (oldest first) and listing the exact information included per hop (field diffs, surface-only status, evidence). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_changelog or get_proposal, which might have overlapping but different purposes.

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 usage when you need the full supersession history with detailed per-hop diffs and evidence tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., get_changelog for a simpler log). Given the context of 18 siblings, some exclusions would be helpful, but the purpose is sufficiently clear to infer appropriate use.

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