proposal_pending_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It declares read-only semantics, single GET, no pagination auto-fetching, response size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal behavior for oversized records.

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 count behavior is front-loaded, but the description includes generic boilerplate about 'other declared filters' and array response truncation that seems unnecessary and potentially confusing for a pure count tool. It is more verbose than needed.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description explains enough for an agent to call the tool safely and correctly: it is read-only, requires an explicit username, makes a single request, and documents limits and failure behavior.

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%, but the only parameter, username, is well-named and the description adds 'explicit username' and notes that required inputs are derived from policy and upstream requirements. For a single, straightforward parameter, this is sufficient added meaning.

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 the pending-proposal count for an explicit username.' It also clearly separates itself from submission and vote operations, which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like proposal_list and proposal_votes.

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 implies its use case: obtain a count for an explicit username. However, it does not explicitly identify sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over proposal_list, proposal_votes, or other proposal-related endpoints.

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