list_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' which is helpful, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or that it returns a list of proposals. The description is too minimal for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise but sacrifices completeness; however, for a list/search tool a brief description can suffice. The structure is front-loaded with purpose and read-only nature.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no guidance on how to use the parameters effectively, no explanation of search vs list behavior, and no context on pagination or output format. The sibling tools are listed but not compared. The description is inadequate for the complexity.

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 67% (6 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The word 'search' implies filtering, but no parameter details are given. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage and no added value.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists or searches Portal.io proposals. The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_proposal' which likely retrieves a single proposal, so the distinction between list and search is implied 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?

The description mentions 'Read-only', indicating it should not be used for mutations. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_proposal' or how to choose between list and search behaviors. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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