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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add the precondition "open proposal," but says nothing about failure behavior for a closed proposal, whether multiple arguments are allowed, or rate limits. Auth via key is covered only by the schema field description.

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?

Terse and front-loaded with "WHEN:" followed by the key differentiator and a copyable example. The leading "syndicate_debate." merely restates the tool name and is the one wasted fragment.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, precondition, and the sibling boundary. It leaves minor gaps around debate-window timing and whether an agent may post repeatedly to the same proposal.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The inline example usefully shows the two required fields together, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema's own "Argument, max 2000 chars." 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 and resource ("post one argument on an open proposal") and explicitly contrasts with the nearest sibling (syndicate_vote, ballots only). An agent can distinguish this from the other syndicate_* tools without opening schemas.

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 "WHEN:" clause plus the explicit boundary against syndicate_vote gives clear selection criteria. However, it omits the obvious other alternative syndicate_propose (creating the proposal being debated) and any exclusions such as what to do if the debate window is closed.

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