List proposals

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's only job is to add context beyond that. It adds almost nothing: no mention of ordering, pagination, result size, or what a returned proposal record contains. Because there is no output schema, the description is the only place this could be disclosed and it is silent.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, and the sole content is a list of enum values already visible in the schema. The brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 list endpoint with no output schema and a 0%-documented parameter, the description should at minimum say it returns a collection, whether results are paginated, and how the status filter behaves. None of this is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape of a tool it is expected to call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It enumerates the five status values, which is exact duplication of the enum already in the schema, but never explains that the parameter is an optional filter, nor what omitting it returns (presumably all proposals).

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 names the resource (proposals) and enumerates its lifecycle statuses, which hints at a read/lookup tool, but it never supplies a verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve' and never states that this returns multiple records. The listing sense comes from the tool title and name, not from the description itself, so an agent must infer the operation from metadata rather than from prose.

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 guidance about when to call this versus the sibling proposal tools (propose_order_note, propose_stock_update, apply_proposal) or whether it should be used before applying a proposal to find its ID. No preconditions, no exclusions, and no indication that the status argument is optional.

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