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 useful context that the proposals are generated from the user's behavior, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or any other runtime traits.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core concept, containing no filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple list tool, though it sacrifices some useful context for brevity.

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 the simple list operation, three well-described optional parameters, and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not state what is returned, and it does not clarify the relationship to list_decision_rules, leaving some ambiguity.

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 fully describes all three parameters with limits, defaults, and enum values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, keeping this at the 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 identifies a specific resource: decision rule proposals derived from the user's behavior. It is not a tautology and helps distinguish these from the sibling list_decision_rules, though it lacks an explicit verb and reads more like a label than an action statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_decision_rules or other related rule tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the context in which proposal viewing is preferred.

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