proposal_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses one-page-per-call behavior, no continuation fetching, decimal-string representation for vote weights and thresholds, local response limits with truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields. It also honestly warns that filter effectiveness is not guaranteed by the 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is repetitive: 'Other filters are forwarded as supplied' appears twice, and 'Each call fetches one page only' overlaps with 'Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' and 'Makes one logical GET request.' Tightening these redundancies would make it more scannable.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps. It never explains what filter, player, or sort_by actually do, what a proposal row contains, or what the response looks like. Pagination and size limits are well covered, but the missing parameter semantics prevent an agent from confidently invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented limit, offset, filter, player, and sort_by parameters. It only explains limit/offset pagination and says other filters are 'forwarded as supplied' without explaining their meaning, accepted values, or effects. 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' is vague and does not help an agent construct correct parameter values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read public proposal rows.' The 'public' qualifier and 'rows' help differentiate it from siblings like proposal_votes and proposal_pending_count, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly. This is clear and selectable, but stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives solid pagination usage context: each call fetches one page only and continuation pages are not auto-fetched, so an agent knows to issue repeated calls for more data. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternative proposal endpoints, and the filter caveat doesn't clarify which filters are appropriate.

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