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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output ordering ('oldest first') and the content of each hop (diffs, surface-only status, evidence types), which is useful behavioral context. It does not state read-only safety, permission requirements, pagination, or error behavior, so significant operational gaps remain.

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 sentence front-loads the core resource and then lists the returned details efficiently. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so clearly: supersession chain, per-hop field diffs, surface-only flags, and evidence types. It is nearly complete for a 1-parameter read tool, but it still omits usage context relative to sibling tools and any operational caveats.

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 slug parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (immutable public ID, current or retained former slug, never follows successor). The description adds no additional parameter meaning or syntax beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact resource (a proposal's full supersession chain) and scope (oldest first, per-hop diffs, surface-only flags, evidence carried). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_proposal or get_progression, leaving the agent to infer that this is the historical/supersession view.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The description explains what data is returned but never names an alternative tool or the condition that should make an agent choose get_history over get_proposal, get_changelog, or similar siblings.

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