listProposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions filtering by status and organizer but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination behavior (page/limit parameters exist but are unexplained), ordering, or whether the tool is read-only. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of purpose and typical use cases. It is missing details about pagination and return format, but it is reasonably complete for a list tool with clear parameters.

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 60% (descriptions for three out of five parameters). The description adds context for filtering by status and organizer but does not cover the participantId filter or explain the page and limit parameters. It adds minimal value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: browsing existing meeting proposals. It provides specific examples (check pending, find by participant, audit) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getProposal or createProposal by focusing on listing and filtering.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to browse existing meeting proposals' and gives concrete use cases. It implies alternatives exist for modifying proposals, as sibling tools like cancelProposal, createProposal, and respondToProposal are listed separately.

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