proposal_pending_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the operation type (read), single GET request, no pagination, array limits with truncation, refusal of oversized records, and clarification that other filters are forwarded without implied effectiveness. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with no annotation support.

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 description is dense with useful behavioral details, but each sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by relevant constraints and limitations. It is longer than average but remains focused and clear, so it earns a high score without being wasteful.

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 single-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: operation type, request behavior, data limits, and edge-case handling. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., integer count), but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and the breadth of other covered aspects.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the only parameter, username. It merely says 'explicit username,' which minimally clarifies it must be specific, but gives no format, domain, or validation details. The note about policy/upstream requirements adds meta-information but not semantic meaning. Overall, it fails to sufficiently enrich the parameter 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 clearly states the specific verb ('Read'), resource ('pending-proposal count'), and scope ('for an explicit username'). It also explicitly disambiguates from vote or proposal submission, making the purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like proposal_votes or proposal_list.

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 some context: it is a read of a reported value, not a submission, and requires an explicit username. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. It implies usage (when you need a pending count for a specific user) but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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