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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already establish safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: privacy rules (which ballot fields are public vs. private) and that uncast voter identities are not exposed. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide, though it could mention pagination or ordering behavior.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds the important privacy qualifier. It is two sentences with no redundant words. It could be slightly more explicit about what is returned, but the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The annotations cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, the schema richly documents parameters, and the description provides privacy context. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear statement that ballots and reasons are read. Minor gaps include not describing the response shape or pagination behavior, but these are not critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke this read-only listing tool.

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 already documents all five parameters, including the id, limit, cursor, detail, and max_tokens. The description adds value only by explaining the privacy implication of reading ballots and reasons, not by detailing parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (space votes), and clarifies that it reads named ballots and reasons within the proposal audience. It also distinguishes itself from cast_space_vote by emphasizing read-only listing. It could more explicitly mention that it returns vote tallies/ballots for a proposal, but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives clear context: it reads votes within the proposal audience and notes privacy boundaries (public poll ballots are public, account IDs and uncast voter identities stay private). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_space_proposal or list_space_proposals, but the 'within the proposal audience' scoping and privacy note provide practical usage guidance.

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