Get Proposal

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

The description states that reading the resource mutates it, expiring an overdue pending_review or needs_decision proposal into a terminal 'expired' state. That is a state-changing, effectively irreversible side effect, which directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. This is a genuine annotation contradiction.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the return payload is front-loaded before the critical side-effect warning. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the returned sections (job facts, application summary, QA entries, evidence manifest) and warns of the expiry transition, which is the most important thing an agent must know here. It is only incomplete in that it says nothing about the proposal_id parameter.

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 a single required parameter, proposal_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains its meaning, format, or where to obtain it. With no annotations or schema text to lean on, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 detail') and enumerates the payload it returns (job facts, application summary, QA entries, evidence manifest), which is far more useful than a tautology. It implicitly contrasts with list_proposals via 'detail', but never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this fetches one proposal by id rather than listing them. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_proposals for discovery), so guidance is thin.

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