List Governor proposals via a hosted indexer (legacy)

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

Annotations only say readOnly and openWorld; the description adds the crucial facts that this hits an external hosted service that may be dead and that an API key may be required — context not available in structured fields. It stops short of describing response shape or pagination, but for a deprecated read-only list tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the legacy status and ending with the actionable alternative. No filler, though the deprecation notice is nearly repeated via 'Tally shut down' and 'Legacy path'.

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?

It covers the important migration/deprecation and auth context, but with four parameters, only half documented, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without guidance on what the proposals response looks like or how limit/organizationId interact. Adequate for steering away, incomplete for actually calling it.

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 only 50% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The two undocumented parameters (limit, organizationId) and the Tally id format get no compensating explanation, so an agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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?

Names the specific verb+resource (lists proposals) and the specific backend (Tally-compatible hosted API), and immediately labels it legacy, which separates it cleanly from governor_find_proposals.

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?

Explicitly states to prefer governor_find_proposals because it reads the contract directly and needs no API key, plus the condition under which this path fails (Tally shut down, now Cactus). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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