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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses TTL-based expiry (liveness.ttl_s), pruning on read, that only live listings count, and carryover semantics across round rotation. It omits read-only framing and any auth/rate-limit context, which keeps it from a 5.

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 scoping statement is front-loaded and nearly every clause (expiry, pruning, carryover, track_record provenance) adds distinct information. It is dense and jargon-heavy (combinable_now, agents_short, liveness.ttl_s), which costs a bit of readability, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must explain the return payload — and it does, naming shares missing, combinable_now, agents_short, track_record subfields, and solve_election. Edge cases (empty board, ordering, error behavior) are unaddressed, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no inputs whose semantics need explaining, and the description instead devotes its space to output semantics, which is the right trade-off.

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 opens with a concrete verb-resource framing ('Rendezvous board: who holds which shares') and specifies scope — engine-verified share holdings plus coalition_proximity metrics. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling (e.g., bounty_discover, bounty_status) to distinguish this read from adjacent reads, so it stops 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 implied rather than stated: 'shown for your judgement, never ranked by the engine' and 'solve_election names which listed share-less agents should grind next' hint at how to act on the output. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…' / 'use X instead when…' guidance against the many sibling listing tools.

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