atstake_legion_list_proposals

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the whole load — and it does state read-only and no wallet needed. It also discloses that data comes from the aggregated site render rather than the chain, which usefully implies possible staleness relative to the chain-direct sibling, and flags it as the cheap option. Missing pagination/result-size behavior keeps it at 4.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the sibling comparison and the safety note — good ordering. The trailing tip to call earning_opportunities is unrelated to listing proposals and is dead weight for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what comes back (tallies, rationales, member roll, live status), that it is a safe read requiring no wallet, and where to go for finer-grained data. That is enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the two parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only obliquely gestures at the side filter via 'both legions' and never explains the ambiguous enum values (bonded/idle) or the phase values, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list every proposal in both legions) and immediately scopes what the payload contains: tallies, rationales, member roll. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling atstake_legion_get_proposal, so an agent can pick between them without reading schemas.

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?

Clear routing guidance: use this for the whole-board overview, use atstake_legion_get_proposal for per-proposal detail and the conclude forecast. That names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It doesn't mention when the side/phase filters should be used to narrow instead, which keeps it off a 5.

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