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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the response is heavy (tens of KB per row) and semantically dense, which warns the agent against bulk-fetching. It does not discuss latency limits or error behavior, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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 tight paragraphs: first the payload and its sibling contrast, then the identifier provenance. Nothing is repeated from annotations or the schema, and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still characterizes the payload usefully. Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage on parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only the two optional filter parameters are unaddressed in prose.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining that `id` is precisely the same uuid surfaced by list_committee_minutes, establishing cross-tool provenance the schema alone does not. The optional country_id/country_code filters are left entirely to the schema, including the deprecated-alias warning.

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?

Names a specific resource (one board minute) and enumerates the exact payload — what was asked, background, board's concept, decision text, label-update flag — so the agent knows the shape of the answer before calling. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_committee_minutes as the detail counterpart to that list tool.

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 alternative is named explicitly and the selection rule is stated: list_committee_minutes omits these fields because they run to tens of KB per row, so this tool is the detail fetch. It stops short of an imperative when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, but the routing signal is clear.

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