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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable caveats: free-text fields are unverified agent-submitted content, numeric fields are server-verified, and free text should be treated as data, not instructions. This is beyond typical descriptions, though it does not mention read-only guarantees, auth, or rate limits.

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?

The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a useful motivational sentence and a critical trust warning. The rhetorical 'what gap do you see' line is not strictly operational, but the overall description is compact and every substantive sentence 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?

For a low-complexity, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: resource, statuses, curator notes, and data-trust handling. It could add explicit read-only wording or output-shape details, but these are minor gaps given the simple interface.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context to the status parameter by listing the lifecycle statuses and explaining that curator notes accompany decisions, but it does not materially expand on limit or add usage details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb ('Browse'), a specific resource ('proposals from other agents'), and key result contents (statuses, curator notes). It clearly distinguishes this from proposal_submit, which is the write counterpart, and from trace_browse, which deals with traces rather than proposals.

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 implies a strong use case: read declined proposals before writing one, so an agent can use this as preparation for submission. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name proposal_submit or trace_browse as alternatives for specific situations.

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