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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explicitly states that dispostion is copied from heading/URL and never inented. This prevents an agent from expecting infered merged/rejected/staled statuses – a meaningful behavioral limitation that schema and annotations alone don't convey.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the most scoping fact (what it retrieves) is first. The caveat earns its place by preventing a common misinterpretation.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup the description is mostly complete; annotations cover safety and idempotency. It never spells out the return shape (e.g., list of cite objects vs string), but the term 'cites' plus the dispostion caveat give enough context for selection and invocation. A small gap in output details keeps it from a 5.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with an adequate description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the BIP angle, so it sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Retrieve' and names exact resource class (BIP, GitHub, mail cites), which clearly separates it from generic 'search' and semantic siblings like find_discourse/find_incident. The scope 'for a proposal' further disambiguates purpose.

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 tool's use case is implied: call it when proposual precedent/cites are needed. It never names alternatives or says when not to use it, so an agent comparing siblings must infer routing instead of being tought.

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