proposal_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosureched. It discloses pagination semantics, size limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, preservation of decimal strings as strings, and single-GET request behavior, which is exceptionally thorough.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is wordy and contains redundancy: "Other filters are forwarded as supplied" appears twice. The detailed "limit=2 with offsets 0 and 2" capture observation is more specific than generally useful, making the text longer than necessary.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers pagination, size limits, truncation, and filter forwarding, but it misses individual parameter definitions and the shape of returned rows. The provided behaviors are useful, yet the description is not fully complete for an agent to use the tool with full confidence.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It gives concrete meaning to limit and offset via the pagination example and states that other filters are forwarded as supplied, but it does not explain what filter, player, or sort_by individually mean. This is partial, not full, compensation.

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?

"Read public proposal rows" is a specific verb and resource, and the name proposal_list clearly signals a listing operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from proposal_pending_count and proposal_votes, though the resource and verb make the intent clear.

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?

Provides clear context on pagination behavior ("Each call fetches one page only", "does not auto-fetch continuation pages") and filter forwarding. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool over similar siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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