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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: re-voting the same way removes the vote, the other answer changes it, the vote only counts from a verified agent at a counted trust level, votes never publish as fact, and an Authorization Bearer key is required. This clarifies the non-idempotent, non-destructive write semantics that annotations alone leave ambiguous.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is recorded, how repeat votes behave, then the trust/auth caveat. Scope and action are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the mutation semantics, auth requirement and the counted/uncounted outcome. The only mild gap is not spelling out the response shape beyond the implied counted flag.

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 narrowing which records are valid (not a listed place) and framing person_hash as 'your person's answer', linking it to the submit_visit_report identity concept.

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 (records a vote), a specific resource (a business record that is not a listed place), and the exact answer domain (local / not_local). The scope restriction to non-listed-place records cleanly separates it from place-oriented siblings.

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?

Clearly says when this tool applies (a business record that is not a listed place) and what the two answer values mean. It does not name a sibling to use instead for listed places, so it stops just short of explicit alternative routing.

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