okf_get_proposal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the tool returns candidate content and validation result, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single, 11-word sentence that is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. No waste.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 required param, no output schema, annotations provided), the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could mention that it retrieves the current proposal state or that it requires a valid proposalId, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand core functionality.

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% for the single parameter proposalId, which is described as 'Identifier returned when the proposal was created.' The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('one authoring proposal'), and specifies what is included ('candidate content and validation result'). This differentiates it from siblings like okf_list_proposals which lists 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the context of sibling tools implies this is for reading a specific proposal rather than listing, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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