List proposals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces and extends this by stating the tool will not approve, reject, spend money, or contact Stripe/Link, giving concrete behavioral guardrails beyond the raw hints. It does not cover result volume or pagination, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary action and filter options are front-loaded and the exclusion clause follows. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 single optional enum parameter with full schema coverage and a mature annotation set, the description gives enough to invoke correctly, including the null-argument default behavior. No output schema exists but return format need not be described; only result volume/pagination is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'pending' default. The description restates the same enum values without adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read purchase proposals') plus the filtering dimension ('by status'). The negative clause ('Does not approve, reject, spend money, or contact Stripe or Link') implicitly separates it from decide_proposal and propose_purchase, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Clearly establishes the read-vs-act context by enumerating statuses and explicitly ruling out approval, rejection, spending, and external contact, which routes the agent elsewhere for those actions. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (decide_proposal) that handles approval/rejection, so it is clear context without an explicit alternative.

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