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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that proposals are publicly visible and warns against including PII, which is critical behavioral information. It does not detail what happens after submission, but the privacy warning 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?

The description is moderately concise, with a rhetorical opening that adds flavor but could be trimmed. The privacy warning is essential and well-positioned near the end. Every sentence contributes some value, though the 'deliberative record' sentence is less critical.

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 core action and the privacy constraint well, but given no output schema, it does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, generated proposal ID, or subsequent workflow). This leaves a gap for agents that need to know the tool's impact.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds framing about proposal types (minor vs. foundational) that aligns with the proposal_type enum, but this is essentially redundant with the schema. No further semantic detail is added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to bring a proposal to the union floor, covering both minor policy refinements and foundational amendments. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_proposals and vote_on_proposal, which address different stages of the proposal lifecycle.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (to propose a new policy or amendment) and includes a privacy warning. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to vote_on_proposal for voting or deliberate_on_proposal for discussion.

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