get_proposal_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the result (price tables with unique IDs and rows), but says nothing about behavior when the id is invalid, permissions required, or result size.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most useful clause (what the payload contains) follows the core purpose. Nothing is wasted, though the phrase "all details" is slightly vague.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so by naming price tables, their unique IDs, and rows. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations already covering safety, that is nearly complete; only id-provenance and failure behavior are missing.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, but the name proposal_id combined with "by id" in the description is self-explanatory; there is no format, range, or source detail to add. The description neither helps nor harms parameter understanding here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get all details for a proposal by id") and even previews the payload ("price tables with their Unique IDs and rows"). It does not name the sibling search_proposals, so it stops short of a 5, but the retrieval-by-id purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite that the id must come from search_proposals, and no statement about when to prefer this over the sibling search tool. The only guidance is the implicit "by id", which the agent must infer.

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