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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low, and the description still adds real behavior: the report is sealed until the meeting closes and a manageToken is required. The one gap is not describing what a sealed pre-close call returns (error vs. redacted payload).

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 compact sentences: contents first, then the sealed precondition and auth requirement. Every clause carries information; minor density cost from packing the content list into parentheses.

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 usefully enumerates the report's fields, partially standing in for a return-value spec, and flags the auth and sealing preconditions. Missing only the sealed-state return behavior and any note on the report's relation to close_meeting.

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 schema already explains both meetingId and manageToken in detail, including where to find each value. The description only restates that manageToken is needed, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific resource (full results report) and enumerates its contents (per-agenda vote counts, voting rights, judgment, basis, verification values), which distinguishes it from get_dashboard and get_draft_status. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so a 4 rather than 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 'sealed before closing' note implies the tool is only meaningfully callable after the meeting is finalized, which is useful implicit guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_dashboard or get_draft_status, and does not say affirmatively what happens if called early (error vs. empty result).

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