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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds important constraints: batches 'grant no eligibility, set no priority and predict no outcome.' It also scopes the tool to active proposals and clarifies that paths are conditional. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the get prefix and the caveats make that reasonably clear.

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 compact, with the core topic front-loaded and a single useful caveat in the second sentence. It is dense and somewhat jargon-heavy, but every clause adds information and nothing is filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's subject matter, its scope, the key components, and the non-effects of the result. Given that there are no parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what it is retrieving. It could be slightly clearer about the exact return shape, but the description is otherwise complete.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain, and the description instead focuses on what the returned progression data means.

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 identifies a specific resource—ordered conditional paths for active proposals—and details its contents: current evidence contract, SDK-first work packet, and capability batches. It clearly separates this from other get_* siblings by describing the unique data structure. It stops short of a 5 because it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb, leaving the 'get' action to the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_progression_throughput or get_queue. It implies it is relevant to active proposals but does not state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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