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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses key behavioral facts: the action is performed as the connected account, the operation is idempotent ('voting again does not double-count'), it returns the fresh upvote total, and it is free. This substantially exceeds the annotation coverage and gives the agent important expectations about side effects and response.

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?

Three concise sentences, each carrying distinct value: the core action and scope, the idempotency guarantee, and the return value/cost. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant detail.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: where to get the ID, what the action means, side-effect safety through idempotency, return behavior, and cost. There is no significant missing context.

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%: the single request_id parameter already includes a description pointing to findagent_list_requests. The tool description repeats that source but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without going higher.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Upvote an agent request on the PUBLIC FindAgent demand board AS the connected account.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like findagent_create_request, findagent_withdraw_request, and findagent_list_requests. It also explains the underlying intent: 'signal that you also want the agent described by request_id.'

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: to signal support for an existing public request, and it directs the agent to findagent_list_requests for valid IDs. It does not explicitly contrast this with findagent_create_request or findagent_withdraw_request, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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