list_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it reveals meaningful behavior: seconds_count is exact, disclosed_linked_seconders is report-only and 'never a gate', and pagination must follow next_cursor until has_more is false. It does not discuss side effects, but for a listing tool these details are substantial.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first fronts the core resource and row semantics, the second gives the critical pagination protocol. Every clause adds information.

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?

Pagination and row-level caveats are well covered, which matters because there is no output schema. However, with no annotations and no descriptions for since, stage, and limit, an agent cannot tell what since refers to (created vs updated) or how filters interact with pagination.

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 only 40%, covering q and cursor; limit, since, and stage have no schema descriptions and no compensating detail in the description. The description mentions pagination.next_cursor and has_more, but it does not explain the cursor parameter, since filtering, stage filtering, or limit behavior.

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 resource (proposals) and scope (every stage of the pipeline) and characterizes the result as a stable paginated page. It does not explicitly say 'list' or 'returns', and it does not name sibling alternatives, so it stops just short of full 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 pagination instruction implies the tool is for browsing proposals page by page, and 'stable' gives context for repeated paging. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this over get_proposal or get_queue, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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