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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating there is no registration or key required, and that the signal carries 0.1x weight. It clarifies the direction semantics (+1/-1) which the schema also includes. The description does not mention potential side effects like idempotency or record creation, but annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already indicate a write operation, and the tool's simplicity reduces the burden.

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 entire description is three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core value proposition ('Instant community signal'), followed by usage context and an alternative. Every sentence carries necessary information with no waste or redundancy.

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 voting tool, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, weight, and appropriate alternatives. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It does omit explicit mention of the optional comment parameter, but the schema covers that adequately. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it merely references 'slug + direction' without extra detail. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a way to quickly express trust (up) or distrust (down) on any entity using a slug and direction. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool nanmesh.trust.review by noting the 0.1x weight versus 10x weight, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you want to quickly express trust or distrust') and provides a clear alternative for higher-weight signals ('For 10x weight, use nanmesh.trust.review instead'). It also frames community favors as lightweight signals, giving context for appropriate use.

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