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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the response is a three-way classification plus the specific statutory article underpinning it, which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of stating edge cases or what happens for an unrecognized key.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core question, then the answer categories, then the returned legal basis. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 explaining what comes back, and it does so by naming the three verdict categories and the accompanying statute citation. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating how to obtain a valid key value or how the citation is formatted, but the essential shape of the call and result is clear.

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%: the single 'key' parameter is documented with type and concrete examples (e.g. "coop_bylaw", "stock_ordinary"). The description adds nothing about the key — not where valid keys come from (perhaps list_resolution_types) — 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?

The description names the exact question the tool answers (can this agenda item be done by electronic voting) and enumerates the three possible verdicts (permitted directly by law / requires bylaws or articles basis / not possible due to e-signature requirements) plus the legal citation returned. That is a specific verb+resource, far beyond restating the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_resolution_requirement or judge_resolution, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to know whether electronic voting is allowed for a given agenda type. There is no statement of when not to use it and no pointer to the neighboring tools that also deal with resolution requirements, so the agent must infer the routing.

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