search_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the module-gating prerequisite and that results are paginated, but omits permission/auth requirements beyond the module check, whether the search is read-only, and any limits on result volume.

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 tight sentences with the scope first, filters second, and the operational prerequisite third. No filler, nothing repeated, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter, zero-required search with no output schema, the description covers scope, filters, pagination, and the module gate. It does not describe sort/orderBy behavior or the shape of returned proposal records, but "paginated results" gives the agent enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including the status enum values. The description's filter list (customer, status, name, source, date range) largely restates the schema rather than adding format or defaulting detail, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Search proposals in KikoBooks") and enumerates the filterable facets, which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_proposal (single-record fetch) and the search_* family. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 a concrete precondition ("Requires the Sales module — call get_enabled_modules first for CB orgs") that tells the agent when this tool will fail and how to check first. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_proposal for a known ID) or stating when not to use it, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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