get_proposal

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful return-content context by stating that vote breakdown is included. For a simple getter, this is sufficient behavioral transparency; it does not contradict the annotation.

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 conveys the action, resource, scope, and an important return detail without any wasted words. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what it returns and the key distinguishing detail (vote breakdown). It does not cover error behavior, but that is a minor gap for this kind of getter.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the only parameter ('Proposal ID (dashless hex)'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full details of a single proposal by ID'), and a distinguishing feature ('including vote breakdown'). This clearly separates it from the plural get_proposals tool and from other entity-focused getters.

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 makes it clear that this is for fetching a single proposal by ID, so the basic use case is implied. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_proposal_votes or get_proposals, and it gives no guidance on when to prefer those alternatives.

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