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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds genuine behavioral context — the state machine, the meaning of the 'deploy' flag, the presence of a decline reason, and the recommended polling cadence. It stops short of covering behavior for unknown/expired ids, which is why it isn't a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the outcome states and then the workflow instruction; nothing is padded. The first sentence is slightly convoluted by the embedded quoted flag and the trailing 'reason when declined' clause.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return states, flag semantics, and the surrounding propose→poll→deploy workflow. Only edge behavior (invalid or unknown proposal id) is left unaddressed.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the value returned by mttr_propose. The description only echoes that linkage, adding no format, range, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and outcome: the status of one proposal, enumerated as pending, approved, declined or expired. 'One proposal' implicitly contrasts with the plural mttr_proposals sibling without naming it, so the distinction is clear but not explicit.

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 gives concrete usage context: poll every few minutes after mttr_propose, and gate deployment on 'approved'. No exclusion against alternatives (e.g. mttr_proposals for bulk listing) is stated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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