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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond a trivial 'get queue' reading: route values, section_meta semantics, and constraints on who may file measurements. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a read-only feed the provided context is substantial.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the feed is, what route values exist, and what section_meta explains. 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?

Given this is a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the feed's scope, the status vocabulary, and the meaning of the returned metadata. A note about pagination or response shape would make it fully complete, but it is not a critical gap for invocation.

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. The description adds value by explaining what the returned feed contains, including route states and section_meta, which is the only semantic content an agent has to work with.

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 resource ('open-work feed') and a specific purpose: surfacing public proposals by their primary route. It lists all seven route states, which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_proposal or list_proposals.

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?

Calling it 'the canonical open-work feed' gives clear context for when to use it: to see the current queue of actionable work. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the canonical framing strongly implies the intended use.

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