propose_role_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it declares a read-only view, states it writes/signs/executes nothing, names the three required settings, specifies that tenant comes from config and never from an argument, and defines the OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE semantics including that errors degrade to UNAVAILABLE rather than fabricated data. It also flags the API-version prerequisite and the caveat that a mapping is not a compliance finding.

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?

The read-only claim is restated three times ("it never asks anyone", "writes, signs and executes nothing", "read-only view"), and the most actionable content (env vars, status codes) is buried mid-paragraph. The purpose should lead; instead the emphatic negations do.

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 tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers setup, failure modes, safety posture and interpretation caveats thoroughly. The one real hole is the input contract for the sole `request` object, which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `request` parameter is an open object with no property documentation, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating the payload holds records and source lookups and that tenant must NOT be passed as an argument, but it never describes the shape, required keys, or a role identifier for the request.

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 opening sentence is a noun phrase ("Questions routed to a role for one oversight case") rather than a clear verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer from the name that this proposes questions. "It proposes; it never asks anyone" helps disambiguate that nothing is dispatched, but the description never names a sibling (e.g. inspect_oversight_case) to separate this from the surrounding oversight tools.

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?

It gives prerequisites (env vars) and failure semantics but no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions against the 16 siblings that also operate on oversight cases and decisions. An agent has to guess whether this or inspect_oversight_case is the right entry point.

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