get_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuine prerequisite (Sales module) and that the response is the 'full detail' record, but says nothing about behavior when the ID is missing/unauthorized or whether the result is cached/limited. For a low-risk single read this is adequate but thin.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite. No filler, nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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-item get with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives the agent what it needs: scope, returned fields, and a module prerequisite. It would be complete at 5 with a brief note on not-found/error behavior, given the absence of annotations.

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 100% and the single required parameter is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'by ID' and names the detail fields returned, but adds no format or validity constraints beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Get a single proposal by ID') and enumerates the returned detail (status, pricing options, line items, signatures). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from search_proposals, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should call this when it already has a proposal_id rather than when browsing. The one real constraint given is the prerequisite 'Requires the Sales module,' which is useful but not a when/when-not statement.

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