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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely non-obvious semantics: that human edits are not visible, and that "approved" reflects authorization rather than delivery, which steers the agent to submission.status. It stops short of stating whether the call is read-only, what access or auth is required, or what happens with an unknown id.

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?

Three very short sentences with the key caveats front-loaded and no filler. The terseness borders on cryptic in places ("Human edits are private" is unexpanded), but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the critical interpretation caveat about approved vs delivered and names a field to inspect. It still leaves the return shape, the id's origin, and error behavior unaddressed, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the single id parameter is documented nowhere beyond its uuid format. The description never mentions the id at all, leaving the agent to infer it is a proposal identifier and where such an id comes from (presumably list_proposals).

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?

"Check a proposal" gives a verb plus a singular resource, which reads clearly against siblings like list_proposals and update_proposal. The verb "check" is softer than "get"/"retrieve", but the follow-up about approval and submission.status makes it evident this is a read of a single proposal's state.

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 instruction "inspect submission.status" implies when to reach for this tool (verifying whether a proposal was actually delivered), and the singular resource implicitly distinguishes it from list_proposals. However, it never states when not to use it, nor points to update_proposal or list_proposals by name for the adjacent tasks.

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