get_proposal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'specific' and 'governance' context but does not disclose behavior like error handling for non-existent IDs or pagination/return format. Given the strong annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose immediately. No wasted words, no repetitive information, and every part serves meaning.

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 simple read-by-ID tool, the description plus annotations and schema provide adequate context. It lacks explicit output details (no output schema), but for a basic fetch operation this is generally sufficient. Given the simplicity, it does not need extensive elaboration.

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 both parameters (network and proposalId) are already well-documented. The description's 'by its ID' aligns with proposalId but adds no additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), clearly identifies the resource ('details of a specific governance proposal'), and specifies the identifier ('by its ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_proposals (which lists) and approve_proposal/delete_proposal (which mutate).

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 clearly implies usage when you already have a proposal ID, which is the primary use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_proposals for enumeration, but the context is clear. Minor exclusion guidance could be added, but not required.

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