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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds real behavioral value: emails are deliberately excluded, pages are walked via next_cursor, and returned text is untrusted public content that must be treated as data, not instructions. That prompt-injection warning is a meaningful trait no annotation expresses.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information (returns, exclusion, pagination, injection warning), with the content/return information front-loaded before the operational caveats. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (customer names, vote sources, weighted demand, no emails), plus it covers pagination and the untrusted-content caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 67%, with feature_id and the cursor object already documented in the schema. The description adds pagination semantics by tying next_cursor to the next call, but says nothing about limit bounds or cursor shape, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a request's votes') and enumerates the returned fields (customer names, vote sources, weighted demand), which cleanly distinguishes it from adjacent list tools like list_feature_comments or list_feature_images. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 explicit pagination procedure ('Continue with next_cursor until null') but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_feature or list_feature_comments. Usage is implied by the resource rather than spelled out.

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