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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the response includes target block height and upgrade information, which is useful return context, but it does not explain error behavior when a name is not found or why idempotentHint is false for a lookup.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text, efficiently stating the action, resource, lookup key, and return contents.

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 simple read-only lookup with one fully documented required parameter and annotations covering safety, this is largely complete. The return shape is only broadly described as 'target block height and upgrade information,' which leaves some ambiguity since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'name' parameter is already fully documented with an example. The description only reinforces that the lookup is by name; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a specific upgrade proposal') with the scoping condition 'by name,' which clearly indicates a single-record lookup rather than a list. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as list_upgrade_proposals, so it falls short of the top score for sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies the tool is used when you know a proposal name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_upgrade_proposals or get_upgrade_votes, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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