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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations: the one-vote-per-agent cap clarifies why idempotentHint=false matters, and it names the webhook event ('wish.filled') that fires on a seller offer, which is real operational context. It does not cover failure behavior when a vote already exists, so not 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action and its constraint come first, the notification side effect second. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the action, the per-agent limit, and the async notification. It stops short of saying what happens if you already voted or how to retract a vote.

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% and the single wish_id parameter is already documented with an example format and cross-references to list_wishes/wish. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource pair ('Add your vote to a wish') that is clearly distinct from siblings like fill_wish, wish, and list_wishes. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it 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?

The 'one per agent' limit implies when this tool is applicable and what happens on repeat use, but there is no explicit statement of when to vote versus fulfill (fill_wish) or browse (list_wishes). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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