getProposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (inspect, see, check, retrieve) but does not explicitly state that no changes are made or mention any side effects. The description is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, but explicit read-only confirmation would be ideal.

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: three sentences that front-load the main purpose, list specific use cases, and provide a conditional instruction. No unnecessary words, every sentence contributes meaning.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the type of return data (status, participant responses, acceptedSlotId). It covers enough for an agent to understand what to expect, though a full list of properties would be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter proposalId. The description adds value by advising how to obtain the parameter (via listProposals if missing) and explaining that the output includes key data like acceptedSlotId, which is useful context beyond the schema's type description.

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 purpose: inspect a specific proposal. It lists concrete use cases (status, participant responses, acceptedSlotId) and distinguishes from sibling listProposals by advising to call that first if no proposalId is available.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: use when you need to inspect a specific proposal, and if you lack the proposalId, call listProposals first. Also explains that the acceptedSlotId is needed for createBooking, offering clear context on when this tool is appropriate.

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