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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral caveats such as invalid-key handling or output format, but it does enumerate the returned information and does not contradict the annotations, making it adequate for a static read-only lookup.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence enumerating the returned fields with no obvious waste. It is somewhat unstructured as a bare list and lacks an explicit action verb, but it is appropriately sized and front-loads the core information.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is important and provides a useful picture of the response content. Input semantics are fully covered by the schema and annotations cover safety, so the only notable gap is the lack of explicit when-to-use 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter's schema clearly explains that key is an agenda type key from list_resolution_types with examples. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific resource: requirements for a single agenda type, and enumerates the exact facts returned (quorum, legal basis, e-voting, notice, identity verification, roster, cautions). It does not use an explicit verb or explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as judge_resolution, but the resource is clear enough for an agent to recognize it as a lookup 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The only usage clue is in the schema description, which says the key comes from list_resolution_types, but that is parameter sourcing rather than tool-selection guidance.

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