Open Proposal Review

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It confirms the effect as 'read', states that human approval is not required, and provides detailed error handling and follow-up instructions (e.g., 'On failure: login_required → login; ...'). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/true/false, and the description aligns with and extends these with actionable guidance.

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 structured with clear sections ('Use when', 'Do not use when', 'Requires', etc.) and is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is verbose, containing detailed error handling and follow-up instructions that could be more concisely presented. It could be trimmed by half without losing essential 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?

Despite the parameter semantics gap, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, usage conditions, prerequisites, effect, approval requirements, error handling, and post-use actions. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. For a tool with two parameters and moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects.

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 50% (only projectId has a description; proposalId does not). The description does not add new semantic information about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It mentions the projectId default behavior, but that is already in the schema's description. For proposalId, no additional context is provided. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 tool's core action: 'Fetch a proposal and return a Web review handoff URL.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch' and 'return') and resource ('proposal', 'Web review handoff URL'). The description also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that human review/apply remains outside the agent-safe MCP surface, and provides explicit conditions for when not to use it (e.g., 'a narrower tool better matches the intent').

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 description includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, providing clear context for tool invocation. It lists prerequisites ('authenticated API authority and an API-authorized selected Project'). It mentions alternatives indirectly ('a narrower tool better matches the intent') but does not name specific sibling tools, which would have made it a 5.

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