list_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action and repeats the status codes already present in the schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, return format, or explicitly indicate that it is a read-only operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the status mapping is redundant with the schema, slightly diminishing efficiency. Still, the overall length is appropriate with no wasted words.

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 simple read-only list with a complete schema, the description is functional but lacks context on pagination usage, sqlfilters capabilities, and expected output shape. It is minimal but not misleading.

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% with all four parameters described. The tool description adds no new parameter information—it merely repeats the status mapping already provided in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema documents the parameters adequately.

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 'Lister' (list) and the resource 'devis/propositions commerciales' (quotes/commercial proposals), distinguishing it from singular get_proposal and other list_* tools. The status code mapping adds specificity and clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_proposal or other list_* tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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