get_proposal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context—that the result includes the proposal's full event history—which is the only signal about return content since there is no output schema. It does not mention auth, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently worded, though given the total absence of parameter and usage information, the extreme brevity reflects under-specification more than optimal sizing.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves key gaps: what 'ref' must contain, how it relates to identifiers elsewhere, and when to prefer it over list_proposals. Only the event-history return detail is a meaningful addition.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'ref', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. It never clarifies whether 'ref' is a proposal ID, a reference string, or a composite key, leaving the agent to guess the format—the one place the description was most needed.

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_proposal') and adds scope: a single proposal plus its full event history. The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_proposals, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Despite an obvious sibling (list_proposals) for enumerating proposals, the description gives no cue for choosing between the single-fetch and list variants.

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