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 adds real value beyond that: result ordering, the fact that each row carries status, and the conditional extra payload (approval vs automatic mode) when a site is supplied. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, which keeps it off 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, zero filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the actionable precondition placed last where it lands. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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?

With one optional param and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back, in what order, when the extra site-mode field appears, and the workflow trigger for calling it. Pagination is a minor omission rather than a blocking gap for a read-only list.

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 one parameter's description already states it returns the site's mode. The description adds only the optionality framing ('for one site or all of them'), clarifying the default when site is omitted, but re-states the mode behavior rather than adding syntax or matching rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('the person's proposals') plus ordering ('newest first') and return contents ('where it stands'), which is far more than the title alone. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the singular mttr_proposal or the write-side mttr_propose/mttr_claim siblings, so an agent still has to infer the list-vs-detail boundary.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'check it before you start work on a site,' which tells the agent when this call is warranted. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. mttr_proposal for a single proposal, mttr_approvals_set for changing the mode it reports), so the routing is clear but not complete.

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